Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.9.2-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Please excuse me for taking advantage of your attention, but I think that this debate is important and that many of the comments not only deserve our attention, but also comments and answers from us. Mr Pohjamo and Mr van Dam pointed out, as did Mr Pittella, that it was important that this new n+2 rule was properly used for the 2000-2006 programme: we noticed at the end of 2002 that it had not caused very significant decommitments. The moment of truth will be at the end of 2003, as many of the regionalised programmes were signed in 2001. Personally, I think that the rules are useful. It is a rule of good management. Like Mr Pohjamo, I also think that the key lies largely in the Member States improving their forecasts. You have stressed this point.
You asked for the next policy to concentrate on Objective 1, on the regions that are poorest or most behind in their development: that is what we will propose but, nevertheless, I have not decided on removing all European action from the other regions. In the current Member States of the Union, sometimes even in the developed regions, there are real problems linked to industrial relocation, restructuring, poverty, extreme poverty in cities, and the problems of desertification in certain areas of the countryside. I do not think that Europe can be indifferent, that the Union can be indifferent to these problems in the fifteen countries of the current Union, because if the Union is indifferent, if it has to concentrate all of its budget on the new countries plus a few regions in the South, we should not be surprised if the people themselves become indifferent to the European Union.
The whole policy that I am aiming at with this reform of the Structural Funds for the future period is focusing and using this policy to serve the broad objectives of solidarity and of the Lisbon and Gotenborg Agenda, making the regions, rather than spectators, the partners in these objectives. In any case, Mr van Dam, I can tell you very clearly that personally, I am in favour of a real reform, sometimes even a radical reform: I will never be in favour of the re-nationalisation of this cohesion policy.
Mr Piscarreta mentioned the idea of going further, as did Mr Pittella himself, in entrusting the Member States with management: yes, I am ready to go very far in decentralising management, but naturally, that means that first there must be a better sharing of financial responsibility. As long as the European Commission is practically solely responsible to the budgetary authority, and the Court of Auditors, I am obliged to check, control and ensure that the control systems are correct and are operational. Probably, in the spirit of what is written in the new European Constitution, we will be able to move towards a better sharing of responsibility and therefore towards a greater decentralisation.
This is what I wanted to say very quickly in response, and to say to Mr Pittella and each of you that I remain prepared to answer all of your questions before your committees and the plenary and to continue this dialogue: we need it, and many of the suggestions made in Mr Pittella’s report will be among the proposals that the Commission will make, particularly in terms of managing the future cohesion period, in the third cohesion report.
Mrs Glase mentioned over-complicated procedures. I would like to put forward my point of view, and I must say again, as I would say to Mr Markov, that I have to implement these procedures because they are in the regulations, which you are well aware of, which were established at Berlin 2000-2006. I have sought to use all the margins for flexibility in these regulations and I have found some, which you were informed of last year when I met with the Ministers to propose them: we are already seeing some effects of these simplification and flexibility measures. Nevertheless, I cannot act as if these Berlin rules did not exist. I admit that they are complicated. I think that we can simplify them.
One way of avoiding having to make such observations during the next period – Mrs Glase mentioned planning for too long a period – is to reduce the time of that planning: I agree with this idea. When I became a Commissioner at the end of 1999, I had to implement this new period. What have I been doing for one or two years, practically two years? I have been consulting and planning with the regions and Member States. For the first two years of the programme, we did not use any money, we did not undertake any projects, because the first two years, 2000 and 2001, were used for negotiating the programmes.
The reason why I have moved the debate forward for the future period and why at the end of 2003 the Commission is proposing its guidelines and new policies for cohesion and its plans for regulation for 2004, is in order to move the whole process forward, and, as long as the governments, the Council and Parliament give their views on the future Agenda, the Financial Perspectives and these policies as soon as possible, we will then be able to use the last year of this 2000-2006 period, 2006, for consultation rather than waiting for the start of the next period.
The hope that I have – I am again being very cautious – what I am working for, Mr Pittella, ladies and gentlemen, is for us to have clear ideas as to the amount of money available, on the new cohesion policies and the new regulations quite soon in order to be able to devote the whole of 2006 to consultation regarding future programmes and for us to thus be able to undertake programmes and projects from the start of the future period and not two years after the start. That is my aim.
Mr dos Santos and Mr Markov mentioned the outstanding commitments. Personally, I say to Mr dos Santos, I have not tried to deny Mr Pittella’s figures: I know these figures well, and I have tried to explain them impartially, because there are explanations. At the same time, along with my colleagues I have endeavoured to gradually reduce this RAL: for example, for the ERDF, the outstanding commitments for the 1994-1999 period were EUR 7 billion at the end of 2002; they will probably be EUR 3.8 billion at the end of 2003. We have therefore reduced them practically by half.
Mr Markov, I was surprised by one of your comments regarding making the n+2 rule more flexible: you talked about the possibility of n+3. If we go down this road, we risk worsening the utilisation problems and worsening the outstanding commitments.
Yes, Mr van Dam, I am working on simplification for the next period: I want to reduce the number of instruments, I want to reduce the number of planning decisions. I will undoubtedly propose abolishing the zoning of Objective 2. I want to focus the priorities and also base matters on the projects and increase the flexibility and redeployment margins during the period. These are the simplification ideas that we are working on.
Mr van Dam, I do not, however, share your feelings regarding the results of this Structural Funds policy. I do not think that it is possible to create a map of bad management as rapidly as you did: I know of cases of bad management in countries that have been members of the European Union for a long time and not only in the new countries in the South. I do not think that we can point the finger at any particular country, as in those countries I am seeing an overall effort, even if it is sometimes quite slow, to improve management and control and to modernise administration."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples