Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-217"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.5.2-217"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
As I took ten minutes, does that mean that I only have one minute left? I do hope that that is not the case, but do not worry, I will not take advantage, I will answer as quickly as possible.
Mrs Iivari, your comment was addressed more to Mrs Reding, but I have heard it. Regarding the cultural cooperation of which you spoke – even though it is not my subject, I am sensitive to what you have said in this regard – in the forthcoming debate on regional policy after 2007 I intend proposing an increase in our appropriations for Interreg and a simplification of that programme’s rules, in order to target cross-border cooperation in transport infrastructures in particular. In that field, too, we need cultural and university cooperation.
There you are, Mr President, I have taken more than a minute but less than 11 minutes and I thank you for your understanding.
I would like to thank everyone who has expressed an opinion on Structural Funds policy, for which I am responsible together with Mrs Diamantopoulou and Mr Fischler, in particular regional policy.
I am not going to go back over the figures I confirmed today and which I sought to give as the most sincere and honest answer possible to the questions put by the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Budgetary Control and Mr Hatzidakis’ Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. The first assessment I outlined before you confirms what I said on 22 May about the period 1994-1999, which for me is the black spot, or at least the grey spot: the procedure used for this programming was so unwieldy that control and certification became concentrated at the end of the period. Mr Hatzidakis, what applies to this period is not n+2 but, you might as well say, n+11. That is the objective reason for the amount of work we have to do to process and check the 2 000 files received. I repeat that my colleagues and I will not skimp this certification period; I shall have no hesitation in taking any measures that may be necessary.
I do not want to lower the quality of the controls or the level of information and certification required by rules with which we are all familiar. Mr Hatzidakis is right when he says that the n+2 procedure adopted for new programmes in 1999 is more efficient and is already producing better results, creates an impression of continuity and results in a smaller number of regular cancellations.
Mr Pronk, I am not satisfied either, even if progress has been made. I am not going to act self-satisfied in front of you, believe me. I am simply noting, like you, a better use for the period 2000–2006. This improvement is due mainly to the n+2 rule and our ongoing cooperation with the governments.
Mr Hatzidakis, I will pass on your comments on the matter of transport and road safety to Mrs de Palacio.
I would like to thank Mrs Guy-Quint and Mrs Jensen for their appraisal of our management under your supervision. Mrs Guy-Quint, we are at this moment making progress on programme appraisal. I am thinking in particular of the efforts being made by Mr Likanen, Mr Monti and myself to make it easier to use the Structural Funds to cover areas not yet served by mobile telephones or the Internet. Let us have less padding and more quality. We are doing so already, but with the future regional policy we are working on and for which I need your support we can go a lot further. The future objective 2 policy in particular will enable us, in partnership with the regions and governments, to implement directly the major objectives of Göteborg and Lisbon relating to competitiveness and sustainable growth.
Mrs Jensen, I shall be continuing the efforts we have begun. The commitment appropriations that you regretted were cut do not fall under heading 2 for which we are responsible. They are transport appropriations, like those for small and medium-sized undertakings. I therefore think that Commissioner Schreyer understood those comments correctly, but I cannot answer this point because there is no reduction in the commitment appropriations, which, incidentally, were safeguarded for the whole period in Berlin.
Mr Pronk, I have answered your question. I am not sure that we will need the supplementary budget I mentioned just now, but as I am being transparent with you I am mentioning it to you at this stage. So far as 2003 is concerned, we do need an amending budget. We may need a supplementary budget next year, but that is not certain. It is simply that we have to be able to pay when the time comes. I do not want States that are capable of consuming and implementing to be penalised on the pretext that there are some bad pupils in the class."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples