Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-14-Speech-1-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000214.4.1-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to thank Mr Procacci for his report. However, I should also like to extend thanks to the various committees involved and Parliament as a whole for the broad support which they have given the LEADER+ initiative.
Finally, under point 20 the motion for a resolution contains seven specific proposals for amendments to the guidelines. Having given them thorough consideration, I can tell you that the proposals made under paragraphs 2, 4, 5 and 7 are acceptable to the Commission and are adopted. The proposal in paragraph 6 will also be partly accepted because it reaffirms that the time allowed for approving programmes under LEADER+ is a maximum of 5 months.
The amendment proposed under paragraph 1 has, in our view, been overtaken by events because, following consultations with the representatives of the Member States in the STAR Committee, this point has already been reworded along the lines proposed by Parliament. That therefore leaves only the amendment proposed under paragraph 3. The Commission can only endorse this request because of course it corresponds precisely to what the Commission itself had originally proposed. I must add, however, that cooperation between our action groups and similar groups in third countries went too far for the Member States. An amendment was therefore made in the committee, but the Commission will now again take account of Parliament’s concern in the revised version and table the guidelines in that form. It will also continue to fight for Member States’ acceptance of this.
I will comment briefly on the 13 amendments tabled. Here there are only three which the Commission cannot accept, Amendments Nos 3, 12 and 13. It can accept all of the others either in full or in essence.
This initiative should give the countryside new impetus to develop and test new and original ideas, ideas which it is then intended should at a later stage be incorporated in the general programmes as models. I am also pleased that Parliament essentially supports the Commission’s view that LEADER+ should be applied in all rural areas, that overriding priorities should be introduced and that, above all, active cooperation and networking between rural areas should be encouraged.
In addition, I note that Parliament shares the Commission’s view that the preferred form for implementing LEADER+ is the use of global grants. Turning now to some of the individual questions raised here today, I can also confirm that we wish to have the widest possible partnership and participation in LEADER+. The various groups, be they environmental organisations or groups concerned with employment, have the possibility of taking part in drafting the Commission directives. And there will not be less funds available than in the current period either; there will be more.
I should also like to remind you that the idea of setting up an observatory is nothing new. There was also an observatory under LEADER I and LEADER II. It has one purpose only and that is precisely to maintain active networking between the individual LEADER groups. The cost of this observatory is not permitted to exceed 2% of the LEADER budget.
As far as the possibility of having projects containing training initiatives is concerned, I might point out that this is precisely a point which we have now integrated into the new rural development policy, which means, in our view, that it is no longer necessary to do this as part of LEADER.
I now come to the content of the report. In point 14, Parliament calls on the Commission to submit an evaluation report on LEADER II immediately. I should simply like to point out that this does not make very much sense at the present time because, as you know, it is still possible – and in fact will be until the end of 2001 – for LEADER II funds to be disbursed. We therefore think that it would be more sensible to wait until the programme’s conclusion before carrying out the evaluation. We will obviously do this and will also forward a report to you on it.
In point 18, Parliament suggests publishing a compendium of examples of successful initiatives. In response I can only say that this already exists. It has already been compiled by the Commission and I can make a copy available to any Member of this House who is interested.
In point 21, Parliament stresses that the guidelines in LEADER+ now need to be adopted quickly so that the programmes can start. I can only fully share your concern. As soon as the opinion is adopted here in Parliament, the guidelines for LEADER+ will again be presented to the STAR Committee so that the Member States can confirm the provisional agreement which they gave on 14 November.
I assume that the Commission will then be able to adopt the definitive version of the guidelines in March or April. And as soon as these are published in the Official Journal the remaining months – in fact six months – can be used to submit LEADER+ programmes. I believe that it is important to point out one thing: expenditure effected under LEADER+ is eligible from the time that the Commission programme starts running. For all programmes submitted before 30 April of this year it will be possible to backdate the beginning of the period of eligibility to 1 January."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples