Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-19-Speech-3-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010919.8.3-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I thank both Mr Marques and Mr Nogueira Román for their fine reports, as I thank all the speakers for their comments.
Thirdly, there is additionality, which the rapporteur sees as open to question, as I do at times. On this point I can confirm that the Commission has carefully checked for compliance with this principle during the ex-ante review of new programmes for the period 2000-2006. Regarding the previous period, the Commission will conclude its final check on additionality at the end of 2002. I agree about the need for more stringent penalties in the event that a Member State does not respect the principle of additionality. As honourable Members will know, no provision is made for such penalties under the fund rules for the period 2000-2006. The legislator, chiefly the Council, was firmly opposed to the idea at the time the regulations were adopted. We do, however, have some measures we can take in the event that additionality has not been verified and if necessary I shall take these measures in consultation with my colleagues.
On the subject of evaluation and monitoring, as you know the mid-term ex-ante or ex-post review was fully integrated into the programming for this new 2000-2006 period. The Commission has just launched the ex-post evaluation for Objectives 1 and 2 for the 1994-1999 period, together with thematic evaluations of the information society, sustainable development and small and medium-sized enterprises. These evaluations, like the mid-term reviews that will be carried out in 2003, will provide answers to any outstanding questions and I will, of course, inform the European Parliament of the results.
Fourthly, with regard to monitoring, the same vigilance will apply; but here the Commission now has a different role to play. As you know, on-the-spot checks now fall within the remit of each Member State, which is obliged to report back to the Commission at regular intervals. We for our part will and do verify that each Member State has set up a reliable system of on-the-spot checks. Lastly, let me emphasise that the number of these checks also rose in 1999, reaching the figure of 120 compared with 100 in 1998.
In conclusion, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me repeat that the Commission is committed to the basic principles of the Structural Funds: concentration, additionality and partnership, and the best possible coordination with the Cohesion Fund.
In their reports, the rapporteurs urge us to be even more effective and vigilant. Let me assure you that I am confident that we will be able to give you even greater satisfaction when we come to study the results and the evaluation for the year 2000. That is the year when the new programming will start, together with some new rules. I believe we will be able to present more positive results, in response to your demands and to the vigilance that you are showing.
With regard to Mr Marques' report, relating to 1999, it did indeed arrive rather late, in January 2001. I can tell the rapporteur that this was due to the problems of reorganising our Directorate-General. Let me now assure him that the report for the year 2000 has been finalised and that the Commission will most probably adopt it in early October.
Briefly, there are four lessons to be learned. The first concerns total and complete financial implementation throughout the programming period. It is true that not all the payment appropriations for 1999 were used in full; only 91.6% of available payment appropriations were implemented. The reason why the appropriations were not all used is the large number of applications for payments reaching the Commission in December 1999. But, on a more positive note, not a single case of fraud or double financing between the Cohesion Fund and any other Community source was detected in 1999. I have kept Parliament informed at regular intervals of the progress in implementing the budget and will continue to do so.
Secondly, there is the question of balancing investment in transport and investment in the environment, which, like you, I consider important.
Thirdly, I understand and endorse your wish to see the Commission devote more resources to on-the-spot checks. Here again, the reorganisation of our departments and in particular the decentralisation of those activities has caused some problems. Our Directorate-General is now responsible for carrying out on-the-spot checks of Cohesion Fund measures but also of all the actions cofinanced under the Structural Funds.
Fourthly, Mr Marques, coordination between the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds has been given real impetus with the new regulations for the period 2000-2006 and, within the Directorate-General, with the integrated management of the various departments concerned with the Cohesion Fund and the other Structural Funds.
That is what I wanted to say, very briefly – following the President's advice – in response to the four points made in Mr Marques' report, for which I thank him.
Turning now to the report by Mr Nogueira Román, while thanking him too for his fine report, I would again like to make four comments. Firstly, regarding the implementation of the funds in 1999, 99% of appropriations for the period 1994-1999 were committed and 75% were paid. That is a figure that, I believe, is broadly satisfactory. As you know, on-site payments can be made up to 31 December this year, in accordance with the regulations. The payment appropriations will, I think, be implemented in full and for the last two years – this was a job that began before my arrival – I have been working with the Member States to ensure that they are taken up as fully as possible. That is a concern that Mr Pittella also raised a moment ago. The delays in the start-up of some programmes in 1994 and 1995 have, therefore, been overcome for most of the actions under the on-going programme. A similar improvement in the rate of execution can be seen in the programme of Community initiatives, although here the delays were a little more serious. It is true, as the rapporteur rightly pointed out, that many outstanding commitments still remained to be paid at the end of 1999. Basically that was because of the accumulation of projects at the end of the programming period. But let me point out that the situation quite clearly improved in 2000, since the commitments remaining to be paid at the end of 1999 were reduced by 47%. In order to keep Parliament more fully informed on the subject, at the end of June 2001 the Commission drew up a full report on the unexpected commitments remaining to be paid for all categories of expenditure.
Secondly, the rapporteur welcomed the fact that the horizontal theme of 1999 was equality between women and men in the Structural Funds programmes. With regard to the Structural Funds for the current period, I can confirm that gender equality has been one of the criteria for accepting plans received from Member States and you can count on Anna Diamantopoulou being very vigilant on this subject; the same applies to Mr Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou and Mrs Avilés Perea, as I noted a moment ago. For the period 1994-1999, however, Member States did not have to provide information on the access of women to the Structural Funds. That means that we have no detailed information on these matters for that programming period."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples