Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-15-Speech-4-131"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-06-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Structural Funds (1998)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000615.4.4-131"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-06-15-Speech-4-1322
lpv:speaker	lp:Alain Esclopé2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, South-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Chasse, Pêche, Nature, Traditions (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is important to take proper stock of the application of the Structural Funds regulations, which remain a fundamental instrument of European policy for reducing inequality. That stocktaking can help us correct any past excesses and learn to manage present and future appropriations better. We learn that the implementation rate for programmes in 1998 remained satisfactory, although only slightly under 90% of total support was achieved for commitments, and 61% for payments. That is why we support Mr Maurice Turco’s report, and he is to be congratulated for approaching this issue pragmatically and without complacency. Moreover, this report reveals some mismanagement in the allocation of the Structural Funds. Beyond the overall picture, considerable differences in implementation have persisted between the different objectives as well as between the Member States and the regions. The difference between the budgetary appropriations and the final implementation remains a problem particularly affecting Objective 2. Moreover the full utilisation of the Structural Funds in 1998, or at least in terms of the percentages mentioned earlier, has only been possible thanks to a compensation mechanism for under-implementation, such as major transfer of credits from Objective 2 to Objective 1. We denounce this type of practice as lacking in transparency. Furthermore, we ask for a fairer distribution of expenditure, more transparency in the allocation and control of the funds, better eligibility criteria, a reduction in the number of priority objectives and Community initiatives. We also think a reduction in the programmes involved would lead to greater effectiveness in their implementation and the possibility of stricter control. To this effect, we join the rapporteur in asking the Commission to strengthen its control and inform Parliament of the results of its audits and assessments."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph