Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050705.26.2-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, through many plenary sittings such as this and the unflagging work of its committees, your institution has always played a decisive role in the development of European cohesion policy. The Commission appreciates the farsighted ways in which you have helped to bring into being and develop a policy which, besides its economic objectives, forms such a secure link between the European Union and its citizens. This debate in which we are discussing the policy’s medium-term future is just the most recent example of these efforts.
You also suggest the maintenance of a specific strength for inter-regional cooperation within the objective for European territorial cooperation. The Commission accepts this. You have proposed that the interoperability between the regional and social funds be increased from 5% to 10%. This gives greater flexibility to regional and national programme managers and thus ensures a close link in some cases between investment and training.
The Commission believes this to be very useful and accepts the proposal. In the particular case of Mr Olbrycht’s report on European grouping for cross-border cooperation, I am pleased to be able to tell you that the Commission accepts most of Parliament’s amendments. Most important is the proposal that the registration of European groupings should be subject to national laws and associations.
Discussing the amendments that the Commission cannot accept is always a more delicate matter. Here I will refer to one or two cases and hope that my explanations of the reasons behind the Commission’s approach will convince the House. I have already spoken of the need to focus cohesion policy on economic modernisation. I have also said that this is especially important for the regional competitiveness and employment objective. In this branch of the policy financial resources are particularly limited and, furthermore, we need to be able to demonstrate the added value to the overall economic situation.
In that light, I am worried by the amendments that seek to enlarge the scope of the policy, especially the regional competitiveness objective. I understand why Members might believe the door should be opened a little wider here and there, but I would ask you to accept that, if we do not take great care, the policy will lose its ability to address key issues and key areas. We have to find an appropriate balance. For example, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to widen the scope of the policy generally to cover operating aid, or to soften the conditions covering land purchase. This is not because of a lack of sympathy; it is an acceptance of the overriding need to concentrate the policy on the main challenges.
There are two particular points I should mention in this connection: VAT and housing. The VAT and housing discussions arise from an effort by the Commission to simplify the regulation by clearly listing elements of expenditure that are not eligible for funding.
With regard to VAT, the discussions in the Council and the amendments put forward by honourable Members demonstrate that this part of the Commission’s proposal creates some problems, especially in new Member States. We want to avoid a position where ERDF cofinance goes straight into Member States’ budgets by cofinancing VAT payments. That position is, I am sure, shared by this House. At the same time I hear from you about problems: the cost for some beneficiaries, for example voluntary organisations and local governments, because the VAT they are obliged to pay is not recoverable. In the coming weeks the Commission will therefore reflect on its proposal with a view to finding a solution to your concerns.
Much the same is true about housing, although the solution to the problem might not necessitate a change in the Commission’s proposal. Again, the Commission does not consider that housing expenditure should be eligible for co-financing under cohesion policy. That is not a change from past practice. It is merely a clarification. It is clear today from the amendments proposed by Members and from discussions in the Council that what was intended as a clarification might lead to confusion, thus complicating the lives of programme managers. The way out appears to be to make a common declaration with the Council that spells out the sort of investments associated with housing that are eligible for ERDF co-financing. Thus we would make clear, for example, that investments to improve the energy efficiency of housing are eligible for co-financing and that the same is true for investments to improve the environment around social housing.
Another area covered by Members’ amendments is the automatic decommitment rule known as the n+2 rule, which will become applicable to the cohesion fund after 2007, since the Commission is proposing to move from the present project approach to the programme approach.
This is the discipline that lies at the heart of the present high-quality performance of official policy programmes and is having beneficial effects on the ground. It turns out to be a strong incentive to efficient and rapid implementation of the programmes. We recognise, however, that the application of this rule for the Cohesion Fund could bring difficulties, especially in the new Member States, as the major focus of this fund is on large infrastructure projects where the investment cycle and public procurement procedures are considerably longer and more complex. We do not underestimate these problems. For this reason, we have been working together with the Presidency and the Member States in order to reconcile the requirements of proper financial management and discipline with the specific nature of the Cohesion Fund.
The Commission cannot accept some suggestions by honourable Members that aim to alter the conditions for the implementation of the policy. Here, of course, we have to remember the importance of achieving sound financial management which leads us to maintain clarity and a clear distinction between the General Regulation and the ERDF Regulations. We have to remember the importance of decentralised management and the role of the regions and Member States in defining development strategies. We also have to ensure that the regulations that emerge can be clearly understood and followed by programme managers and that they do not contain political messages or statements of intent. It is on those grounds that the Commission is unable to accept a number of amendments.
Whilst expressing the Commission’s recognition of your role and its gratitude, may I, on a more personal note, thank the four rapporteurs – Mr Hatzidakis, Mr Fava, Mr Andria and Mr Olbrycht – for the outstanding quality of their reports. My thanks also to Mr Galeote Quecedo, who has steered the work of the Committee on Regional Development so efficiently. Together they have set the stage for a fruitful discussion today. In replying now to your proposed amendments I hope I can be as clear and convincing as the reports themselves.
You are fully aware of the difficult conditions under which the debate on the future financial framework is taking place. The Commission needs your full support to ensure that an ambitious cohesion policy to achieve Lisbon and Göteborg objectives can be implemented by 2007.
By adopting your reports, you are giving a clear signal to the Council of your determination to take up this important challenge. By choosing to discuss its position on the future shape of cohesion policy now, this Parliament is sending the message that there is no time to lose. You are signalling that you want to secure a medium-term future for a cohesion policy before the end of the year. The Commission supports you in this. We are doing all we can to ensure that the necessary decisions are taken as soon as possible under the British Presidency, so that the Member States and regions have new cohesion policy programmes ready to come into operation at the start of 2007.
As I said, we are discussing the future of cohesion policy until 2013. In the years between 2007 and 2013 cohesion policy can build on its present results, but we have to look and move forward. We can secure a growth dividend by involving regions more closely in our economic and social modernisation. This is what is at stake in the present discussions on cohesion policy. The Commission and Parliament see the advantage of having our regions and cities on side and it can only be beneficial if their role as key actors in Lisbon and Göteborg is enhanced. It is with these overall objectives in mind that I would like to give you the Commission’s reactions to the proposed amendments, a reaction inspired by our common goals. The Commission is grateful for your support on many key points. I will list some of them.
We have a common view on the architecture of the policy, one built around the objectives of regional competitiveness and employment, regional cooperation in a number of forms and of course convergence. It is vital to boost the growth of the poorest regions and close the wealth gap between them and the rest of the Union. Here EU cohesion policy has a starring role to play in raising aggregate productivity growth in the Union as a whole.
We have a common view on the imperative of concentrating finance on the poorest regions. I fully share your opinion that the national strategic reference framework should be the object of the agreement between the Member States and the Commission. This agreement should provide the basis for the final decision of the Commission, in line with Article 26 of the draft General Regulation.
We also have a common view on the essential role of cohesion policy in the drive towards a modern knowledge-based economy. That is why it is important for the Council to adopt strategic orientations for the Union as a whole and why we propose that Member States should draw up national strategies for the pursuit of these objectives. The report before you supports this view. However, I must tell this House that the battle is not yet won. We still have some way to go, therefore, to transform this part of the Commission proposal and the views of the European Council into a political reality.
The Commission and Parliament also have a common view on the importance of territorial cohesion or, to put it another way, the understanding that economic modernisation will benefit if special attention is paid to particular places in Europe.
The present urban initiative that was added to cohesion policy at the insistence of this House is a major success and the Commission wants to build on it by creating a special place not only for cities but also for rural areas. We have proposed a special programme for the outermost regions and welcome your support.
These are some of the points where the resolutions before Parliament offer firm support for the Commission’s proposals. Others suggested by your rapporteurs will be taken on board by the Commission. Perhaps I can give one or two examples. Your resolution suggested that cohesion policy will be strengthened by better cooperation between ERDF co-financed operations and other Community policies. I fully share your view and I am working to bring this about. However, we all need to understand that the pursuit of this goal and the requirement that we concentrate our scarce financial resources mean that some kinds of project can no longer figure amongst our priorities."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples