Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.1.2-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, rapporteurs, I should like, first of all, to thank Parliament for this new debate on the future of cohesion policy. Of course, my thanks go both to your two rapporteurs, Mr Mastorakis and Mr Pomés Ruiz, to whom I have listened attentively, and to each and every one of you.
The figures which I have, and which are at your disposal, do not prove that everything is perfect, but this policy has produced results for the four countries involved in cohesion. The GDP per head of population increased by ten points between 1988 and 2001, thanks to the efforts made by those countries but also thanks to European support. On the basis of the figures for the Objective 1 regions which have been sent to us by Member States, I see that the average wealth per head of population in those countries increased by six points between 1989 and 2001. These figures prove that this is a useful policy. Once again, we need to preserve it while at the same time renewing it.
We must recognise the importance of the fact that the regions are a reality, and that this reality is relevant not only in terms of governance. In many regions, and particularly in Objective 1 regions, there has been progress in terms of partnership, parity, evaluation, programming and planning. That is what this cohesion policy brings with it: not just money, but also the modernisation of the way in which we work together and administer our affairs.
This regional reality is also relevant at economic and social level. Each territory has its own specific needs, and I am often astonished that anyone can deny that evidence. I should like to explain to Mrs Schroedter, who spoke earlier and called for the definition of a long-term strategy, that all this will lie at the centre of my thoughts and of those of my colleagues when we define our proposals in the third progress report on cohesion.
That is the main political lesson that I should like to draw from the examination of the reports by Mr Mastorakis and Mr Pomés Ruiz, in other words the agreement which unites our two institutions on the fundamental ambition of a policy for everyone, a policy that is territorial and visible and which serves the interests of Community priorities.
We do not have the time to go into detail regarding the proposals of your rapporteurs. I should simply like to mention, briefly, six points which to some extent constitute the backbone of any reform which we might, together, envisage and desire.
First of all there is the priority – which will be confirmed and accentuated – given to regions whose development is lagging behind. Naturally these least developed regions are concentrated in all the new Member States, but not only in those States. I should like to say to Mr Berend and to his neighbour Mr Cocilovo, to Mr Markov or to Mrs Wenzel-Perillo, that I shall find a fair, Community-based solution for those regions which will suffer from ‘statistical’ effects. At the moment I can envisage an Objective 1a which would respond to the special problems of those regions.
Secondly, there is agreement on the need to support the competitiveness of the regions wherever such support is necessary, with a limited number of themed priorities which are related to, and create a synergistic effect with, the major European objectives set at Lisbon or Göteborg. On this subject, since I am talking about competitiveness in all the regions, I should like to say to Mr Duin that the new Objective 2, as I imagine it, will be well-targeted, and properly decentralised, towards the priority objectives of Göteborg and Lisbon. In other words, some of you have criticised the ‘sprinkling effect’ which is still allowed by this aspect of regional policy, on the basis of regulations or policies defined in Berlin. I believe that this ‘sprinkling effect’ should be limited, or even abolished, by targeting, in the context of the new Objective 2, if we retain it, the objectives and priorities of Lisbon.
Having said that, ladies and gentlemen, many of you are aware that in developed regions which are not lagging behind in their development, situations may develop which are sometimes, indeed often, extremely serious, sometimes tragic, and sometimes shameful, particularly in poorer areas, as a result of illegal immigration. This is also true as regards the industrial restructuring linked to the market as a whole, which may have a drastic effect on industrial areas. It also applies, sometimes, to disasters caused by the weather. Earlier, Mr Ferrández Lezaun referred, as I myself did yesterday evening, to what is happening in Portugal following the forest fires that have occurred there. It will be necessary to create jobs in those areas which have been entirely destroyed by fire, because, for the people who live there, if there is no forest there is no work. We are well aware, then, of the need for the European Union to show active solidarity in regions which are not necessarily covered by Objective 1.
A third point on which we agree is the substantial strengthening of cooperation, which is also symbolic of the European Union, particularly as regards cross-border work and projects.
A fourth point which Mr Pomés Ruiz defined in his report concerns the territorial dimension of cohesion policy. Just now, Mr Pohjamo and Mrs Kauppi gave excellent descriptions of the real situation in the northern regions – which I have actually visited – in Sweden or in Finland. Mr Santini did the same for mountain regions. Moreover, Mr Santini, it is not necessary to explain to me what the situation is like in the mountains: for twenty years now I have been elected to represent a mountain region. As for Mr Segni, he spoke about islands. All this corresponds to the territorial realities in regions which have structural handicaps which mean that, in those regions, the success or even the implementation of Community policies is more difficult than elsewhere. We must therefore take this fact into account, perhaps in the way that Mr Hatzidakis suggested earlier, or by means of an amendment, by increasing the subsidy rate. Once again let me say that I am taking all these ideas into account, and in particular the proposals by Mr Pomés Ruiz. I am also aware of the fact that, when the new proposals are being drawn up, I shall have the support, not only of this House, but also of the new European Constitution. I have had the honour of taking part in the work of the Praesidium of the Convention, and I was very keen on the idea of introducing the concept of territorial cohesion into the European Constitution. I hope that the Heads of State or Government will retain it. This concept has just been added to the concept of, and need for, economic and social cohesion, a concept which it also reinforces.
A new debate – and it will not be the last – is therefore being held in this House at an extremely important moment, because we are just a few months away from that enlarged, reunified Europe in which – and I say it again – the economic, social and territorial divisions and the inequalities will be even greater than at present. The Union will have one third as many additional citizens, one third as much additional territory, but only 5 to 6% as much additional wealth. That is the reality of the enlarged, reunified Europe that will come into being on 1 May next year.
Finally, the last point on which we agree is that there should be a programming, management and control system that is simpler and more effective, so that people do not always call into question, as Mr Virrankoski did just now, the Brussels bureaucracy. I am well aware of the fact, ladies and gentlemen, that there are undoubtedly bureaucrats and technocracy in Brussels. However, if you look hard enough you will find bureaucracy in many other places apart from Brussels. If you find that there are difficulties in implementing the Structural Funds in your regions and in your countries, it is highly likely that the reasons for those difficulties lie partly in Brussels and in the complexities of Brussels. Yet they are also found in the Berlin regulations which I am responsible for applying. There are also objective reasons. I cannot submit accurate figures on the management of the Structural Funds or submit accounts – and accurate accounts at that – to Parliament and the Court of Auditors, unless I have the means of carrying out controls.
You are also well aware, however, that some of the difficulties are due to the complexity of the national management systems. We can, of course, simplify all that, and on this subject as well I am ready to propose substantial changes, including the submission of new ideas. Earlier, Mr Bradbourn criticised the idea of the tripartite contract. It is not a question of bypassing the nation states: the tripartite contract is an idea for bringing together, in the context of regional programming, Brussels, the national capital and the region. Those are the points on which I am able to signal my agreement, in addition, of course, though the time has not yet come to talk about it in detail, to the budgetary ambition which will make this policy a reality, with a credibility threshold which I have personally set at 0.45% of the Community GDP.
There are many points that have been raised by one person or another, and even if I do not quote all of you, I have carefully taken note of your remarks. I shall end, therefore, by referring, as Mrs Sudre, Mr Fruteau and Mr Marques have done, to the special situation in the ultra-peripheral regions. Here again, I have ensured that the Commission reproduces, in its new Article 326, what is guaranteed under Article 299, and at the same time strengthens it. I have also noted the concern expressed by Mr Karas and Mr Esclopé, a concern which I share, about services of public interest and the question of whether they really exist, particularly in those regions which are in the greatest difficulty.
Finally, and this is my last word, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have another concern regarding my forthcoming presentation of the third progress report on cohesion: I hope that the debate will get off the ground very quickly, despite the European elections next year and the change in the Commission. Let us not lose too much time in reaching decisions based on the Commission proposals. What is at stake here really is very important. We must try to speed up the timetable so that regions and Member States know fairly quickly where they stand. If possible, they should be aware of the policies and the rules before the end of the current programming period. Negotiations with the regions will then be able to start before the end of 2006 and it will be possible to launch the implementation of projects and programmes in each of the regions, particularly in those that are in the greatest difficulty, as soon as the next programming period starts in 2007, and not two years later, which I observed to be the case after Berlin. We are not there yet, but it is a prospect that I was keen to point out to you.
For the time being, we have to carry on the debate, which is difficult because cohesion policy is being called into question and sometimes condemned. Personally, I shall never tire of explaining it and defending it in an open and constructive manner while at the same time accepting criticisms and proposals. In this spirit, I have paid close attention to the conclusions of your two rapporteurs and to the – generally speaking – constructive support shown by Parliament for this policy, a policy which is, and I say it again, one of the best and most practical policies of the European Union. It is not a policy of passive solidarity, but rather a policy of active solidarity which is a credit to the European Union.
That reality makes it necessary for us to ask ourselves about the policy which we are pursuing at the moment, and which I have the honour to be moving forward together with my colleagues Mrs Anna Diamantopoulou and Commissioner Fischler. We have to evaluate it objectively and lucidly and imagine what it will be like during the new period from 2007 to 2013 or 2011. The Commission will be presenting its proposals for that period in the context of its third progress report on cohesion, which I am currently in the process of preparing. Of course, at the same time the Commission has been thinking for some months now about the future financial perspective.
I should like to emphasise, in passing, the spirit in which we are working, and in which I have been working with you for the last four years, a spirit which is inspired by a desire for transparency. We do not have any hidden agenda. We do not have any cards up our sleeve when it comes to the Structural Funds for the next period. Since January 2001 the Commission has adopted and publicly presented – in the first instance before this House – several documents, including the one that is the subject of the report by Mr Mastorakis. In that second progress report, we set out the facts and figures, and we indicate certain directions for the future, without being so ambitious as to draw up a strategy for the future. That strategy will be contained in the third progress report on cohesion, which is planned for the end of this year. Since the forum on cohesion in May 2001, the Commission has been frankly and openly seeking contributions from Parliament and from your committees, but also from local authorities, from associations of elected representatives and from Member States. We have received many contributions, which are all available, in complete transparency, and are accessible via our website.
It is obvious, then, that we do not reject any proposal, any criticism or any debate. Mrs Miguélez Ramos mentioned just now the Sapir report, which I have had occasion to refer to somewhat critically, not because I disagree with the diagnosis that it makes of the European situation and of our need to increase our efforts regarding competitiveness, innovation, research and education, but because I disagree with its conclusions, and in particular – as you quite rightly pointed out, Mrs Miguélez Ramos – with the senseless idea of abolishing the tool of regional policy. That being the case, I am open to any constructive criticism. Just now Mrs Scallon herself mentioned a few ideas which I have taken note of. Cohesion policy is not a sacred cow that we do not have the right to disturb. On the contrary, over the past two years I have held an ongoing dialogue with Parliament, and in particular with the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, which will continue to be inspired, for another few weeks, by the work of Mr Luciano Caveri, to whom I paid tribute here yesterday in a different debate, and also with the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control. All this has resulted in real proposals for reforms. Moreover, some of those reforms are already being implemented, even before the next programming period begins.
Nevertheless, even though we agree that cohesion policy needs revising, even revising somewhat radically, we do not agree that it should be abolished or renationalised. I do not want only half a policy on cohesion. Mr Karas was speaking just now about charity. Yet cohesion policy, solidarity policy, which is something that Europe can be proud of, and which was one of the best and most practical policies of the European Union, is not a policy of charity.
Nor is it a blank cheque to be sent to the poorest countries and regions. It is not merely a budgetary or fiscal transfer from one country to another. This policy is the expression of something else. It symbolises a certain concept of Europe. For me, as for many of you, ladies and gentlemen, that concept of Europe consists of more than just a supermarket. Cohesion policy ought to be symbolic. It is the proof of a community – and that word is important – a community of regions and of States which share with one another, while awaiting the day when it will become, I hope, a political power.
I share the opinion of Mr Markov, who was speaking just now about this concept of Europe. He talked about a real policy serving both the needs of convergence, where convergence is needed, especially in the regions that lag behind the most, and the needs of competitiveness for everyone, while at the same time acknowledging the fact that the regions exist.
Mr President, the effectiveness of this policy has been emphasised by some Members, but it has also been criticised by others. I should like to thank Mrs Guy-Quint for reminding the House how important it is. By contrast, I disagree with Mr Korakas, who said that this policy was a failure."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples