Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050705.26.2-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to point out that I am speaking in my capacity as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets on the issue of the Structural Funds. In the time allocated to me, there is so much to say that I have decided to select a number of points which, with the budgetary orthodoxy of this Parliament, apply to all opinions and are relevant to the various reports concerned, both that of my colleague Mr Andria on the Cohesion Fund, and those on the ERDF, ESF and European Fisheries Fund, as well as the general opinion of our fellow Member Mr Hatzidakis on the Regulation laying down general provisions. I also thank all my fellow Members for the vast amount of work they have undertaken.
The challenges facing Europe are now, more than ever, of critical importance for the development of the European Union’s future competitiveness, for which the Structural Funds represent not only the indispensable financial instruments but also, today, in the current Europe of 25, which we are now building – in this Enlarged Europe – the spearhead for the Union’s budgetary objectives and the essential vector for our ambitions for Europe.
I shall not refer again to the substantial work done by the Committee on Budgets or to that of the Parliamentary Temporary Committee on the Financial Perspectives. While Europe is experiencing an unprecedented crisis, Parliament has assumed its responsibilities by adopting, in June, the Böge report on the budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013. It is true that, during the preparatory discussion on the Structural Funds, based on the Commission’s proposal which focused on the three objectives of convergence, regional competitiveness and employment, and European territorial cooperation, we had no clear indication of the figures contained in the budget.
Today, the situation remains complex, not to say grotesque, to use the words of some of our fellow citizens: we are asked to express a view on the Structural Funds while still being unaware of the final amounts to be allocated to them if – as I and the vast majority of our colleagues hope – we manage to reach a rapid agreement on the financial perspectives. In connection with two or three key matters, I should therefore just like to stress a few principles based on common sense and simple budgetary orthodoxy, which will enhance the role of the European Parliament as a budgetary authority.
The first is that once these financial perspectives have been approved, the Commission will, firstly, confirm the amounts indicated in the proposal for a regulation or, if applicable and necessary, submit the amended amounts for approval by the European Parliament and the Council to ensure they fall within the ceilings, as the Committee on Budgets is constantly pointing out that they should.
The second point, already referred to on many occasions, debated at length and regularly stressed in Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, is to draw attention to the positive results of applying the N+2 rule and to propose that it should be retained as a matter of principle.
The Regulation laying down General Provisions and the Regulation on the Cohesion Fund stipulate that this N+2 rule should apply to the Cohesion Fund. I would remind members that the aim of this rule is to encourage the beneficiary Member States to use the funds committed without delay, obliging them to use a degree of discipline in the preparation and financial management of projects.
However, aware of the potential difficulties for the new Member States in making rapid use of the Structural Funds, we, and, in particular, the rapporteur Mr Andria obtained, with great difficulty and after long discussions, a compromise whereby the N+2 rule would be relaxed in response to the requests from our new colleagues and should become sufficiently flexible to enable projects to be started and executed rapidly. The time allowed under the N+2 rule will start to run on day 1 of the project’s implementation, not on the first day of scheduling by the Commission, thereby creating the flexibility that will help us in achieving our aims.
Lastly, I shall not go back over the issue of non-refundable VAT, on which we wholeheartedly uphold the position of Commissioner Hübner. To conclude, the Committee on Budgets will ensure that its different positions adopted by Parliament are defended. It is, of course, ready to begin negotiations without delay with the Council and Commission on the financial perspectives, to which it is strongly committed, believing that, contrary to the statements of Jack Straw reported in Le Figaro on 30 June, it would be extremely serious if we were unable to reach agreement before the end of this year. If we delayed in reaching agreement, we must realise that the delay in implementing the policies would have serious economic and social consequences for our fellow Europeans. However, despite this, it is important to be clear on one point: Parliament will not accept a bad agreement, and we shall have no hesitation in rejecting it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples