text
stringlengths
0
3.78k
past experience dictates that as the elected representatives of the european taxpayer we should and indeed must demand financial probity and transparency in the disbursement and auditing of this money hence our amendments and additions relate to achieving what are known as value for money indicators in the grantgiving process
next we all too often see vast sums of money being spent on projects whose outcomes will necessarily be unclear at the start of the programme period
but at the midway point or end of that period there is no effective way of terminating the project if it has not proved successful
our additions therefore call for the provision of practical enforceable exit strategies so that not only can we have the requisite insurance against ongoing costs which are often loaded onto the taxpayer but we also avoid the wellrehearsed syndrome of throwing good money after bad
finally we call for a change to the balance and method by which the funds are disbursed
there should be greater involvement of the private sector which will introduce financial reality as a perspective within the funding equation
also the type of project funded needs to be shifted away from smallscale revenuebased projects which are hard to monitor towards capital schemes where in the majority of cases the benefits are there for all to see
that way the muchtrumpeted need for transparency in the use of these funds and the temptation to draw unnecessarily in the longer term on the local tax base in areas where such projects are located will be diminished and the european parliament will show how seriously it takes the need for such reform
if these changes to the report are supported by the house today i believe that they will move us forward in the next phase of achieving the historic objectives which the funds were set up to bring about namely to assist in a financially sustainable manner those deprived areas of the european union which need to be brought up to a decent standard of living not by giving a handout but by giving a handup
i urge the house to support these changes
mr president commissioner i too would like to commend the rapporteur on her report which is a meticulous and substantive piece of work
the european union' s structural and cohesion policies are without doubt essential tools for creating the right conditions with a view to tackling and reducing the levels of economic and social disparity between the regions
despite the steps taken thus far these levels are still very high and are unacceptably high as regards unemployment
these policy objectives can only be achieved through their careful coordination and organisation on the basis of well thoughtout and sensible guidelines
let us not forget that when these policies are effective they also benefit european citizens by directly improving their quality of life
let us not forget either that greater consideration should be given to the islands and remote regions of the european union because their geographical location is a hindrance to their economic and social development unless of course the commission is intending to build bridges or underwater tunnels linking them to the european mainland
in closing i would like to point out that the structural policies as a whole require greater flexibility so that they can adapt to changing circumstances and thereby respond to the new challenges and opportunities of the new millennium for which we all hope for the best
mr president mrs schroedter' s report undoubtedly contains several important observations and i would like to congratulate her on that
however i feel that we should be a little more concerned about the actual direction and outcome of the community' s regional policy
quite briefly structural policy does not ease the problem of mass unemployment in any way rather it aggravates it
the agricultural economy and agricultural regions have been irreparably damaged by the existing regional policy which has had dramatic consequences on employment levels in rural areas and on the living conditions of farmers particularly in the south
regional disparities are becoming much more marked within the member states
if we examine the data presented in the sixth periodic report we will see that the last decade has witnessed a proliferation of regional disparities
little consideration if any at all has been given to the great problems facing the island regions of the union whose shortcomings as regards infrastrucutres structure transport communication and energy has resulted in their gradual depopulation
the union' s economic and social policy is just as much to blame for that as its regional policy
a large section of the union' s population has strongly condemned this policy for being dangerous and anti grassroots
unfortunately the new guidelines seem to be heading in the same direction and there are no signs that things will change once they have been implemented
mr president i would like to say a few words in order to highlight two points made in these reports which are of fundamental strategic importance to the way we see the union
the first is the fundamental central importance that we continue to give to the principle of economic and social cohesion
we are concerned to hear news that the commission is taking this objective less seriously
we still feel that economic and social cohesion is one of the union' s fundamental objectives
secondly i agree with what has already been said on the issue of the islands and i would also like to bring the outermost regions to your attention
in future we would like to see greater ambition applied to the subject of the outermost regions such as in my country the islands of the azores and madeira
i would like to ask if the commission is able to enlighten us on the reasons for the delay in the commission' s report on the outermost regions which has been long awaited by parliament
mr president first of all i would like to thank the rapporteur not least for being willing to include in the report the suggestions we made
mr president commissioner the guidelines are intended to help steer the member states towards achieving the reform objectives contained in the programmes
however contrary to their claim to provide guidance the commission' s proposals in this respect are reminiscent to a far greater extent of a catalogue of possible measures within the scope of the various policy areas
nonetheless their true purpose is to give direction and to set priorities
i agree with the rapporteur that unfortunately the commission document contains too little in the way of recommendations to the member states on simplifying administration and i support the calls for negotiations to concentrate on promoting a favourable climate for labourintensive small and mediumsized enterprises on setting clear objectives for alternative sources of financing including provisions for risk capital and private financing and on startup help for companies including new information technologies and investment in innovative fields
i am particularly in favour of a proposed amendment tabled by my group to paragraph 10 to ensure an appropriate level of private sector involvement in the planning and implementation of the projects
i should be very grateful mrs schroedter if you would actually include this proposed amendment in the part relating to subsidiarity in your positive deliberations
mr president commissioner in the committee on employment and social affairs we upheld unanimously the criterion that it was of strategic importance and a matter of priority to support the interventions of the structural and cohesion funds which are working for a better opportunity for jobs for the unemployed and for equality between men and women
unfortunately the excellent schroedter report did not take account of this criterion despite the fact that there is considerable evidence to show as we shall see later in the berend report how in fact these funds are providing splendid assistance to the most backward regions in order to bridge the gulf that separates them from europe' s most highlydeveloped regions
they are growing but only in terms of gdp
they are increasing in competitiveness but they are not all experiencing an increase in wealth because there is no increase in employment and there are still differences in employment opportunities between regions
commissioner please read the opinion of the committee on employment and social affairs and treat it as a matter of priority because this is our citizens' greatest problem
please take account in strategic terms in the revision and in the allocation of reserves of employment needs because this fundamentally is what the structural funds and the cohesion funds require
mr president it is important that the guidelines head in the right direction and that they guarantee the effectiveness of the programmes of the crucial sevenyear period 20002006 so as to ensure sustainable development and job creation particularly for women and young people and ensure a balance is struck between economic and social policy and regional policy
it is particularly important to address those serious issues concerning urban areas employment in rural areas aid to agricultural regions and equal development opportunities for the islands of the european union and for the greek islands which of course comprise half of the islands of the union as stipulated in article 158 of the treaty
cohesion policy needs to be strengthened further because a europe which totally disregards the standard of living in its regions can neither be reliable or viable
mr president ladies and gentlemen i would like to express my great interest in listening carefully to the comments occasional criticisms and suggestions that some of you have just made in your speeches with reference to mrs schroedter' s report
everyone understands mrs schroedter ladies and gentlemen the reasons and the time limits involved and i shall come back to this point presently and whatever the time limits or delays since we are discussing this report right now as the representative for the commission i consider that the report has been issued at an opportune moment with regard to the guidelines for 20002006 as it is now that we are starting the new regional programming
mrs schroedter you quite rightly pointed out that while it is chiefly up to the member states and the regions to define their own priorities in development matters european union cofinancing of the programmes requires and is the justification for a situation where community priorities as debated and approved in this house should also be taken into account in order to promote this community aspect of economic and social cohesion which many of you forcefully pointed out
so ladies and gentlemen i should like in a moment to return to the role and structure of the guidelines before mentioning the principal comments and criticisms that you mrs schroedter and the various members of this house have made
regarding the role and structure of these guidelines mr hatzidakis mrs schroedter and mrs mccarthy mentioned that the purpose of these guidelines is to assist national and regional authorities in preparing their programming strategy for each of structural fund objectives 1 2 and 3 as well as their links with the cohesion funds
this means putting forward the commission' s priorities based on past experience in implementing the programmes as well as current community policies relating to structural operations
the objective is that these priorities should contribute to the better use to the optimum and efficient use as some of you have wished of community involvement including mr bradbourn using if necessary the performance reserve which is specifically intended to encourage the optimum and efficient use of european public monies
when i speak of optimum utilisation i am referring both to the national and regional levels and so mr seppänen i shall also mention at this point speaking of the national level the link with the cohesion fund
this is the purpose of these guidelines
regarding their content as you know ladies and gentlemen of this house they are focused on three strategic priorities that your rapporteur pointed out very clearly but at the same time very passionately as i understood her presentation just now
the first priority is to improve the competitiveness of regional economies in order to create in all sectors but especially in the private sector as mr berend said the maximum number of serious worthwhile and permanent jobs the competitiveness of regional economies all regional economies and in particular mr evans that of wales but not only of wales
and because there are a number of you who have just pointed out what appeared to you to be an omission let me also add the regional economies of the european regions handicapped by their distance from the centre be they remote regions island regions or of course the most remote regions which are naturally the most distant
perhaps i may inform mr ribeiro e castro who asked me about this that as i wrote to the presidents of each of these most remote regions the commission did indeed request an extension of several weeks before publishing its anticipated report
concerning the most remote regions it was only quite belatedly that we received the memorandums from the various governments but this is not necessarily an excuse just an explanation
we must therefore take these memorandums into consideration and produce an extremely thorough piece of work
i myself took part in a meeting of the most remote regions on 23 november and within the college we considered that we would need several more weeks before being able to produce a report that dealt appropriately with the extremely serious problems and lived up to the expectations of these most remote regions i would thank you for your understanding in this matter
so that is the first priority the competitiveness of regional economies
the second priority which several of you have stressed mr puerta in particular but there were others not that i am mentioning them in any order of priority is the strengthening of social cohesion and of employment particularly by raising the profile of human resources far more so than in the past
ladies and gentlemen we now have a european union where the disparities between countries are observed to be less great proving the effectiveness and worth of the cohesion fund but where at the same time in relation to unemployment as you wrote mrs schroedter an increasing gap exists between the 15 or 20 richest regions and the 15 or 20 poorest or most disadvantaged regions this is a situation which is as it should be unjustifiable and intolerable
as far as i am concerned taking into account my own concept of the construction of europe and regional development policy in particular this is a situation which i find unacceptable and i have every intention as far as possible with your support of dedicating all the appropriations for which i am responsible to this improved social human and territorial cohesion particularly in order to prevent what i once called in this house a twospeed europe a europe of wealthy districts but at the same time a europe of impoverished areas
in fact the guidelines take two horizontal principles into account the first is rural development and let me say mrs schroedter that i am including in rural development the matter of sustainable transport an issue i have been involved in personally for a long time
i particularly remember the time when i was minister for the environment in my own country the second principle is that of equal opportunities particularly for men and women as well as the european strategy for employment and the context of economic and monetary union
finally and in order to respond to the concerns which you have expressed in this house particularly yourself mrs schroedter in these guidelines we recall the importance and the definition of integrated strategies for development or redevelopment which of all the priorities offer the maximum opportunity to synergy to the measures undertaken and to the establishment of a decentralised partnership
you expressed some concern about what might look like a lack of reference to this partnership yet there is a clear reference to it on page 5 of the guidelines
however i do wish to mention since you have asked me to do so that as far as i am concerned this partnership and i spent long enough as a regional administrator within my own country to be able to say this most sincerely is a tool one used to involve local brainpower be it in the public sector in the form of elected representatives the social and educational sectors associations or in the private sector a decentralised partnership and let me mention in this connection in response to mrs angelilli the territorial pacts which are one of the means available to this decentralised partnership
these are the reasons why the guidelines are presented according to thematic priorities since they must be taken into consideration under each of the objectives to different extents in accordance with the specific situations of each of the member states and regions
i should now like to respond briefly to a few of the comments you have made ladies and gentlemen and firstly on procedure
it is true that consultation with parliament has only come about at a late date
let me remind you that when the guidelines were adopted by the commission in the form of a draft in february 1999 in line with a new procedure intended to make it easier to present comments on this text my predecessor mrs wulfmathies presented them to parliament immediately
due to the elections to the european parliament taking place around this time however parliament was not able to undertake its examination of these guidelines until after the text had been definitively adopted in july 1999
here in this chamber ladies and gentlemen among you i wish to assure you that in the negotiations for the programmes which are only just beginning mr hatzidakis asked me a question about this as far as member states are concerned your observations will certainly be taken into consideration
and let me assure you furthermore that when the commission adopts the guidelines with what we call the midterm review in mind in line with the regulations then the point of view of this house as expressed in this report will also be taken into account
now to the form
on the subject of the role of the guidelines mrs schroedter you pointed out that this is the context in which guidelines on a number of european objectives often very precise ones should be provided
i shall not list them all but they include implementing intersectoral policies increasing efficiency in the use of public funds assisting the various partners in drawing up regional or national programming together etc the commission takes note of these but several of these guidelines or these questions are related more to other documents such as the guide to the reform of the structural funds or the methodological working document
drawing to a close i should like to focus on a number of challenges which you reiterated mrs schroedter
i am thinking for example of the idea that these guidelines are not specific enough in their recommendations
this claim that your report makes must be seen in the context of last spring' s negotiations
the commission kept to the actual text of article 10 of the structural funds regulations which stipulates that the aim of these guidelines is to provide member states with broad indicative guidelines on relevant and agreed community policies
i actually quoted the text itself in quotation marks
moreover the guidelines may not substitute for the programming or the ex ante assessments which must be the tool used to specify priorities and the effectiveness of these programmes
you then mentioned mrs schroedter the section of the guidelines relating to urban and rural development pointing out that urban development was not sufficiently taken into consideration
i find the opposite the case
i wish to confirm the great importance the commission attaches and shall attach to the urban dimension of our cohesion policy
indeed i had occasion recently to say as much to all the ministers responsible for urban policy at a meeting in tampere
as regards rural development which a number of you brought up particularly mrs redondo jiménez the guidelines are in line with the twofold objective mentioned by your rapporteur a strong agricultural sector linked with increased competitiveness in rural areas but also protection of the environment and europe' s rural heritage
it must however be stressed that the guidelines under discussion are related only to the structural funds whose objectives 1 and 2 specifically adopt the diversification of rural society as a priority
and indeed on the subject of the balance of rural society let us not forget that there is also the new rural development policy cofinanced by the eaggf guarantee section aimed at promoting reform in european agriculture and supporting the multifunctional aspect of agriculture
at this stage i would simply like to say that i would like to see it integrated into the programming for objective 2 rural areas in the way that the eaggf guidance section is for objective 1 regions
in any event i appreciate the vigilance of your committee on agriculture and rural development in this matter