Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-187"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050705.26.2-187"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my group endorses the idea contained in the Fava report that the ERDF should concentrate on investments, infrastructures and further development initiatives in selected areas that are a priority for the Community, as it continues to be the case that the whole Community can expect to derive considerable additional benefit from investments of this kind. In essence, the report, as adopted by the Committee, adds muscle to those of the Regulation’s provisions that deal with scope, aid and the rules for eligibility of expenditure.
Generally, albeit not entirely or in every single detail, the way the Committee voted reflects the position taken by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, and we agree with the Commission and with Mr Fava, the rapporteur, on the substance of the three objectives, these being convergence, regional competitiveness and employment, as well as European territorial cooperation. We also endorse the proposal for the proportionate distribution of financial resources. The emphasis on the regions most likely to benefit from support, albeit not to the detriment of those affected by the statistical effect, is the logical consequence of Article 160 of the European Communities Treaty.
There are two points to which I should like to draw particular attention, the first being the continuing need for the option of public-private partnerships to be open, which would mean the cofinancing rate being calculated also by reference to private resources. There is in fact no reason why the Commission should not agree to this.
My second point is that, if we fail to reach agreement in due time, in the context of the Financial Perspective, on the amount of funds to be made available, the regions most deserving of support would, in accordance with the treaty’s requirement for cohesion, have to receive special treatment. What that means is that under no circumstances must any cuts be merely linear, for this would definitely be to the detriment of the convergence regions and would run counter to the European cohesion policy guidelines. Perhaps, though, the British Presidency will manage to fit structural policy into the Budget in such a way that no cuts would be possible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples