Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-20-Speech-2-378"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100420.14.2-378"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hahn, let us speak plainly. The simplification that everyone here is so much in favour of will mean that large sewage plants and huge waste incinerators will no longer, as is currently the case in the regulation, have to be approved by the Commission when the investment is greater than EUR 25 million, but only when the amount exceeds EUR 50 million. For projects with a value under EUR 50 million, the Commission will no longer evaluate cost-benefit analyses and it may be that these analyses will no longer be carried out. In contrast to the current situation, no checks will be made to determine whether or not these projects comply with EU environmental legislation.
On account of the fact that these projects are partially financed by loans, there will also be no investigations to establish whether it makes sense to burden the citizens of the region with heavy borrowing and to identify whether the credit burden is in proportion to the benefits of the project for the citizens. These are attractive transactions for the banks, because they can charge high fees during the initial years of the project. This is why in the past, ex-ante evaluations of large projects were essential in order to ensure the efficient use of European funds. This is why we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance are of the opinion that checks on large projects must be increased, rather than reduced as specified in this proposal. Therefore, we are against raising the evaluation threshold.
In addition, we want cost-benefit analyses and compliance with EU legislation to be transparent to the public and not to be fudged, as has been the case in the past. The Structural Funds regulation continues to suffer from the fact that large projects which receive finance can only last for five years from the time when the investment is made. Therefore, we Greens have already called for an extension of ten years to ensure the true sustainability of the investments and to create permanent jobs in the regions.
If projects are based in the regions for a longer period, this will prevent those responsible for the projects from pocketing European subsidies and then simply disappearing after five years. The case of Nokia in North Rhine-Westphalia demonstrates the damage that can be caused to regions when subsidy hopping becomes widely accepted. In our opinion, the sustainability clause should therefore remain in place for small and medium-sized businesses for five years and not for three years, as proposed in the amendment.
We Greens are also opposed to this, because a combination of larger investments without checks and a shorter duration for projects is highly likely to result in money being poured down the drain. We believe that it is not possible to justify this to European taxpayers.
If our amendments are not accepted, we cannot vote in favour of the report. We will also request a roll-call vote, so that when citizens complain to us at a later date that money has been wasted, we can show them how the Members voted."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples