Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-233"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050705.26.2-233"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have risen to speak in this debate, which relates to the Council regulations on the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, as a representative of a new Member State, Poland. I would therefore like to start by saying how delighted I am at the fact that the work on these regulations has continued, even though the Council has failed to reach an agreement on the new Financial Perspective for the years 2007-2013. The fact that these regulations are being prepared a long way in advance of the period during which they will apply will enable the Member States, and in particular the new Member States, to make appropriate preparations in terms of public authority structures, the various types of institutions, beneficiaries of the projects and national legislation.
In view of the limited time available, I would merely like to highlight two issues that are particularly important for the new Member States. The first is the problem of VAT, or more specifically the problem of classing this tax as an eligible project cost. If such a decision were taken, this would have particular significance for public beneficiaries of projects, which do not pay VAT. In Poland, for example, this would affect the majority of projects, and in such instances VAT would increase the costs of implementing these projects by more than one fifth. This, in turn, would lead to a reduction in the number of projects submitted, as well as frequent financial problems for beneficiaries.
Mr Hatzidakis has agreed in his report to such a solution with regard to VAT and the Cohesion Fund. A group of Members has proposed that a similar solution also be adopted with regard to the European Regional Development Fund, as there is no logical reason why different solutions should be adopted for different funds.
A second important proposal that has been submitted by a group of Members is that the n+2 rule should not apply to projects implemented under the Cohesion Fund. This would allow greater flexibility with regard to this Fund, as well as making it easier to implement large infrastructure projects, especially in the new Member States. Adopting such a solution would also be in accordance with the provisions relating to this matter in the Böge report on the new Financial Perspective for 2007-2013.
Finally, I very much hope that a majority of Members of this House will ultimately vote in favour of these two important proposals."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples