Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-275"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.9.2-275"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to express my gratitude to Mr Giovanni Pittella for the extremely careful and detailed work – true to his temperament – that he has personally led, independently, rigorously, and uncompromisingly.
I noted in passing your particular concern regarding good execution of appropriations in the new Member States for 2004-2006, a concern that I entirely share. I would also like to note that this depends on good planning, which will only be successful if the budgetary authority provides us with the human resources that we have requested.
Mr Pittella, like you, I am very concerned that this good planning should succeed and that appropriations should be well utilised in the new Member States in 2004-2006, which is a very small period: two and a half years. A few days ago I met with the Ministers of Finance of these ten countries plus Bulgaria and Romania. I met with them again yesterday in Rome along with the Ministers from the current countries. I am even going to add something very important to prove that I am in full agreement with you. I think that the accession of these countries, and therefore the success of enlargement, is currently based on rules, laws and regulations that are still a little restrictive. However, in most people’s minds, the success of the accession in the first few years is based on the success of the cohesion policy, on the fact that we will be capable, with the authorities of those countries, of using the money available, which is significant because we are talking about EUR 22 billion for cohesion.
Third point: what can we do together, collectively? In the immediate future, we need to maintain and even improve the circulation of information between us. Mr Pittella, I am absolutely in favour of the
that you propose, although there are some arrangements that we need to discuss. My intention is also to continue to be transparent. This is why you will be regularly informed, with updates several times per year, of the progress of three parameters: forecasts regarding the application of the n+2 rule, which I hope to maintain for the next period, forecasts for execution by the Member States, and finally, the progress of closure of the 1994-1999 programmes.
I would like to conclude by stressing how appealing this cooperation is for me and for the Commission as a whole. As we are preparing to adopt, as I said earlier, and submit to you the third report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, it is clear, as you have constantly pointed out yourselves, that good execution of the Structural Funds and Community initiatives is one of the conditions required for this ambitious policy that we wish to preserve and revive to be credible.
Here I will use your formula, Mr Pittella, of pathological RALs, which are different from physiological RALs. Like you, I am very concerned with this credibility, which relies largely on our capacity to utilise the money available, to show that we need it and to prove that it has been used effectively. To go a little further in my answer, over and above the comments that you made, which I will probably largely repeat in the draft regulations, the idea that we have of the future cohesion policy is that it should be more focused on the objective of convergence and competitiveness for Objective 1 and the Cohesion Funds and entirely focused on the ambitions of Lisbon and Gotenborg for Objectives 2 and 3, in other words more generally qualitative and decentralised for the other regions that are not the most behind in development.
I will repeat your idea, which I agree with, Mr Pittella, that during the next period, the Commission should be able to concentrate on its strategic objective and also that the Member States and regional authorities should be given more responsibility for management. This requires a better sharing of financial responsibility, but you also made comments and suggestions on this point, which we are going to look at during the very last weeks of preparation of the third report on cohesion.
I would also like to thank you, Mr Pittella, for the quality of the dialogue that you have established – again uncompromisingly, with each person in their role – not only with the Commissioner responsible for regional policy but also with my colleagues.
The report that you have just presented is the fruit of that dialogue, which took place both in the context of the Committee on Budgets and of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, both of which I am always happy to attend, as you kindly said. I was very pleased to hear you presenting your report from a dual perspective, both historical – I will say a few words about settling the past – and looking forward. You also stressed, almost more so, through your proposals and ideas regarding future regional policy, the need to learn both from the most distant past and also the most recent past.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out that at the end of 2003 we are at a crossroads where we need to firstly settle the previous period, 1994-1999, using certain methods and regulations, secondly manage the current 2000-2006 period in the best way possible, using other methods and regulations, and thirdly prepare for the future period based on the proposals that the Commission makes at the end of this year in the third report on cohesion, using other methods and regulations. This is why, Mr Pittella, what you are suggesting and recommending will, I promise you, be very useful for this report on cohesion and for preparing for the new period.
In the text that you presented, you stress two important issues. The first question is: why is there an under-execution of payments under the Structural Funds this year and what will be the payment appropriations requirements for 2004? You mentioned the second question earlier: what are the foreseeable effects of the n+2 rule and what measures should be implemented to simplify it in the future cohesion policy after 2006?
To add to the speeches that I already made last month on the 2004 budget and in May, before the Committee on Budgets, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to give some answers to these two major issues, based on three points:
The first point: where are we today? Budget execution worked correctly in 2003 despite some unforeseen events. With regard to the current planning period, our efforts at simplification are beginning to bear fruit. It has been possible to make the payments more quickly than before: EUR 12 billion at the end of August, compared with only 9.6 billion in August 2002, which represents real progress from one year to the next. However – once again I will be frank, because I am in the habit of saying what I think and see – for the 1994-1999 period, in other words the first period, the closure operations are progressing slowly, too slowly, and we are faced with an excess of appropriations. The Member States sent their files at the very last minute, in January, February and often even in March, with the last deadline being on 31 March, and I am sorry to say that it is taking longer than foreseen to examine all of these files, of which there are several thousand. This issue of the closure of programmes for the 1994-1999 period is therefore essential for what we call the ‘outstanding commitments’ or RAL.
The second point: faced with this situation, what can we do and what should we do? My aim, Mr Pittella, ladies and gentlemen, is still to reduce these ‘outstanding commitments’ as much as possible by the end of 2003, and we are going to continue to reduce them from both ends. Today I also sent you, Mr Pittella, and the Committee on Budgets, some information demonstrating the size of this reduction, on the one hand by cancelling commitments that should not give rise to a payment – release of appropriations is already being prepared – and, on the other hand, by actually and genuinely executing payments.
Will this be enough to deal with all the appropriations available in the 2003 budget? I do not think so. This is why the Commission is soon going to put forward an amending budget in order to cancel part of these appropriations. With regard to the 2004 payment appropriations, I am not going to go back over in detail what I said to you last month, but simply point out that our approach is prudent given the experience of previous years. Nevertheless, if the payment appropriations were insufficient due to a faster execution than foreseen for the 2000-2006 period and a legacy from the 1994-1999 period, the Commission would naturally suffer the consequences."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"monitoring"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples