Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-214"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050705.26.2-214"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, thank you for allowing me to speak at this point. Colleagues will report on future contributions, but I am grateful to you for understanding the difficulties involved in being here for the changed time of the debate.
We can agree with Mr Silva Peneda and Mrs Krehl on the need to simplify procedures for delivering structural fund programmes. While we welcome many of the Commission’s useful initiatives in this area, the Council can certainly agree with Mr Silva Peneda that there is scope for even greater simplification of some of the proposals in the draft regulation. We can also agree with Mr Harangozó and others on the need to maximise private sector involvement in the programmes.
As for the priorities for structural fund support, again the Council and Parliament have much in common. On the ERDF, we all agree on the need to maintain an appropriate level of concentration on a limited number of priorities and, as Mr Fava has argued, to strengthen the focus on activities, such as innovation, research and development in support for Lisbon targets.
On the ESF, we can agree with Mr Silva Peneda on the need for a clear focus on the European Employment Strategy.
The outstanding issues are now clear. Both the Council and Parliament are eager to maintain a strong principle of partnership so that national, regional and local stakeholders continue to participate actively in the delivery of programmes. However, there are differences that we need to resolve on working with partners.
Similarly, there is widespread support for measures to improve the effectiveness of structural funds. But we have differing views on some aspects of the Commission’s proposals. For example, the Council has been unable to offer support for the Commission’s proposals to establish obligatory performance and contingency reserves, because we fear that the administrative difficulties and bureaucratic cost would outweigh any concrete benefits they might achieve.
These are not insurmountable difficulties, but we need to work closely together to resolve these differences over the coming months. We will take Parliament’s views into account as we prepare new compromise texts to be discussed in the Council working group. My colleague Alan Johnson will be visiting the Committee on Regional Development on 12 September, and will be happy to discuss these issues further with Members then. We will keep in close contact with the rapporteurs to discuss matters with them as the Council’s position develops.
From today’s debate I have a very much clearer understanding of Parliament’s views on these very important dossiers. Time is tight and our two institutions will need to cooperate closely. For my part, I can assure you that the Council will work constructively and effectively with you to find a way forward. I look forward to our cooperation over the coming months to establish the common ground on which we can build a cohesion policy fit for a new Europe in the 21st century.
We have heard some excellent contributions. I particularly welcomed Mr Galeote Quecedo’s stress on the importance of cohesion to the future of the European Union. I also agree how welcome an early decision on the budget would be. That requires a serious focus by all of us on achieving an outcome. We will certainly undertake to play our part in trying to bring about such agreement. I also note the emphasis he placed on such issues as VAT and housing.
I say to Members that we will now reflect on the points raised today and examine carefully the reports and the amendments that are adopted tomorrow. The Presidency will then maintain close contact with Parliament as we move towards a common position, in order to discuss how best to accommodate your concerns.
Some of those concerns were very varied. Mrs Krehl referred to the success of the cohesion funds in the UK. I agree, and that is one of the reasons that we agree with the point that Mr Beaupuy made when he called for a focus on the ten new Member States. Mrs Griesbeck called for agreement but reserved the right to say ‘
’. I say to her and others that we should all focus on getting the right answer for the 21st century for Europe. But, again, today the focus is on the regulations.
As I said in my opening remarks, there are differences of opinion on the package of regulations, but it is clear from the debate that there is a strong consensus between the Council and Parliament on many aspects of reform. We are all determined to develop a dynamic and efficient EU regional policy that contributes fully to the Union’s key objectives and helps ensure that enlargement is a success – all except Mr Smith, who read a press release into the record, and perhaps Mr Booth, who seems to have missed the enormous benefits of regional development in England.
But turning now to the mainstream of the debate, Parliament has raised a range of questions and issues regarding the size of future structural funds budget, as well as its distribution between the Member States and their regions. A number of Members, especially Mr Hatzidakis and Mr Andria, have defended the broad architecture of the Commission’s proposals, which would focus an expanded structural funds budget on three objectives – convergence, competitiveness and cooperation – and have opposed any modification of the distribution of funds between these three priorities. Mrs Schroedter emphasised the role of the EU regional policy in ensuring EU solidarity. I agree – although there is evidently a range of views – on how to introduce genuine solidarity in practice. For example, Mr Triantaphyllides argued for a greater focus on the poorer Member States, while Mr Allister suggested that the Commission’s proposals would allocate too much to the new Members.
The Council is also pursuing a debate on the best way to focus and deliver the funds in the next financial perspective so that they make the most efficient contribution to the EU’s regional development; asking a range of questions regarding the Commission’s proposals for the allocation of the funds, for the distribution between the three objectives, on the emphasis placed on convergence funding for richer regions, primarily in the richer Member States and the proposed 50-50 split of funding between the old and new Member States.
Others have questioned aspects of the technical rules for delivering programmes, such as the application of the n+2 rule to the Cohesion Fund, where there was a welcome reference to flexibility on the way that applied, and the treatment of VAT and other expenditure. These are complex issues and how we resolve them will have a major impact on the effectiveness of future structural fund spending.
I noted that most parties in Parliament and the Council are broadly supportive of the Commission’s proposals to strengthen the strategic focus of structural fund spending on the Lisbon and Göteborg agendas. We all want a rigorous evaluation and more flexible and efficient mechanisms for delivering projects and we are all eager to maintain robust rules for monitoring expenditure so that structural fund spending is rigorously accounted for."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples