Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-12-Speech-2-342"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050412.32.2-342"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, I know it is very late but as the questions the honourable Members have raised require detailed replies, I shall, if you will allow me, use the time allowed at the end of the debate in addition to the time allowed for my introductory remarks.
This is the Commission’s current proposal. My concern is to maintain this proposal. As we hear, there are many other ideas, including in the Member States. Many consider this proposal to be too generous. We are, therefore, focusing very much on defending this proposal.
With the adjustment of the ‘Berlin method’, another instrument the Commission has used in its aim to share out fairly the effects of enlargement, we have also managed to increase the overall financial envelope by EUR 16 billion. This adjustment reflects the statistical effect of enlargement on the way we take into account the national prosperity factor in our calculations.
Let me also say that some of the reductions in the allocations, which are perceived by regions to be a consequence of enlargement, are not a result of enlargement, because there are 12 regions with 18 million people whose GDP has increased over the years faster than the Community average. Today, those regions will come under Objective 2. As a result, we have on the table today a budget that is more or less equally divided between the old and the new Member States.
All the above elements confirm that the Commission’s proposal addresses the question of an equitable distribution of the effects of the enlargement at the same time –which is important for us – as preserving the objective nature of the method of allocation based on Community-level statistics.
Let me also react to what you, and in particular Mrs Krehl, said with regard to the balances on own-resources. Those issues clearly come under the responsibility of Dalia Grybauskaitė. I know that she would be delighted to exchange views with you on this. However, it must be said that although budgetary balances do not provide a complete picture of all the advantages stemming from Union membership, the Commission is aware that discussions on this subject are a reality and play an important role in the public debates in some of the Member States. That is why the Commission’s proposal on the system for financing the EU budget in terms of revenue, which is not my responsibility, should also be seen as a compromise solution, which is intended as a kind of safety net.
You have stressed the importance of net balances and you suggest a link between the regional policy and the allocation of funds and the net balances. To put this bluntly, this is not the best approach to regional policy, because we pursue regional policy in order to reduce disparities in accordance with Article 158 and not to solve the net balance questions. That is why we should not mix these discussions.
Even though the importance of the impact of enlargement cannot be assessed only in budgetary terms, I understand the will expressed by Members to have a better understanding, for the sake of transparency and non-discrimination, of the Commission’s budgetary proposal in the context of enlargement. Enlargement has financial implications and we need a financial effort at EU level. However, let us be clear that the impact of enlargement also concerns other dimensions. I agree that the Union’s budget for the period 2007-2013 must be sufficient to guarantee the economic convergence of the 10, which I am convinced will be for the good of all 25 Member States. It is clear that the size of the overall budgetary envelope for 2007-2013, and the size of the envelope for cohesion policy in this context, matters a great deal.
Will we have sufficient funds for 2007-2013? We never have enough funds, because Europe’s needs are enormous. But in reality we know that we do not have all the money in the world; nor do we have the absorption capacities that would allow us to spend much more money in an efficient way.
I want to stress that, some months ago, the Commission tabled a proposal under which every euro is well thought through and justified. That is why we consider the proposal to be well balanced and well prepared, including with regard to cohesion policy, and a basis for addressing the needs, problems and challenges that the enlarged Europe with a hundred million more citizens will face now and in the future. That is my reaction to your comment on whether we have enough money. I very much agree with Mrs Krehl’s comments on the efficient use of public and taxpayers’ money. We also have to think about the budget in terms of the efficiency and quality of its spending.
When we think about the cost of enlargement, I always feel tempted to remind you that the ten new Member States have fully contributed to the Union’s budget, including to the existing correction mechanism, in line with common rules. When you look at the policies that the new Member States are gradually introducing into major Union policies, we must remember that enlargement has already been taken into consideration from the point of view of the contribution to the financing of policies.
When preparing the proposal for 2007-2013, the Commission took into account all the budgetary developments linked to enlargement. In reply to your question of whether the Commission proposal constitutes equal treatment of the Member States in the context of cohesion policy, I should like to briefly mention the six basic principles on which we based our approach to the distribution of the costs and of the potential benefits when preparing the budget. These principles allow a fair distribution of the effects of enlargement.
Firstly, the Commission has sought to guarantee the necessary means to finance economic convergence and cohesion in an enlarged, more diversified Europe. Secondly, the Commission has taken account of the economic fact of life that there are regions in the 15 Member States that have not yet completed the process of economic convergence. Thirdly, we strongly believe that a cohesion policy is also necessary for regions not subject to the convergence objective, whilst being guided by objective economic criteria and the ‘Berlin method’, as adjusted by the Commission. We also keep in mind the requirement that all Member States should be treated equitably in any final agreement. Fifthly, we believe that the cohesion policy should apply in a uniform way to all 25 Member States: we should not have one policy for the 10 Member States and another policy for the 15. Sixthly, the Commission remains aware that, for some Member States, difficulties will still need to be addressed in any final agreement in the course of the negotiations, again in the interests of overall fairness.
We follow very closely, and, as you know, participate as much as the role of the Commission allows, in the negotiation process between Member States. We are prepared to contribute in an appropriate way and whenever necessary to any final agreement taking into account specific cases. At this stage, the Commission will not propose any special solution or compensation mechanism. However, if, in the course of the negotiations in the Council, such a mechanism or such programmes and projects were proposed, then the Commission would be more than willing to participate in contributing to the final design of such a proposal.
It is important and true that the distribution of financial resources amongst Member States reflects in principle and in general the relative social and economic situation of each region and Member State, and they are measured by well-known indicators. I do not want to list them, but let me stress that the Commission has recognised that in certain cases final allocations will be affected by factors other than objective socio-economic circumstances in regions or Member States. As you know, according to recent statistics, 16 out of 254 regions with more than 60 million inhabitants will feel the statistical effect of enlargement. In these cases, the Commission has proposed an ad-hoc solution, namely creating a specific transitional scheme at regional level and adjusting certain parameters of the ‘Berlin method’. As a result, the Commission’s proposal for the statistical-phasing out regions represents a very limited reduction: an average of only 6% of what these regions would have received were they fully eligible for the convergence objective in the 2007-2013 period"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples