Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-04-Speech-2-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060704.5.2-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as a Greek I am, I think, entitled to say that today we are at the end of a marathon run of debates and negotiations which started not in 2004, when the Commission submitted its proposal for the draft general regulation, but much earlier, in 2001, when we started the first debates on the future of the Structural Funds for the period 2007-2013.
We also managed to ensure there is a special article on sustainable development and the environment. In other words, we achieved what we have for years referred to as the 'greening' of the Structural Funds. There is a strong legal basis for not causing any further environmental damage via the Structural Funds.
At the same time, we strengthened urban policy. The Member States are obliged to have more specific forecasts for towns. This obligation includes submitting a special list of the towns selected in order to address the relevant problems. We also signed a joint declaration with the Commission on an interim examination of the consequences of decommitting funds on the grounds of the Ν+2 or Ν+3 rule, because problems may arise as a result of this rule.
Does this mean that we are absolutely satisfied? To be honest, it does not. I would refer by way of example to the British Presidency's bonuses, which have somewhat altered the cohesive logic of the regulation. I would also refer to the fact that we did not manage to get our views across on the so-called performance reserve, with the recycling of appropriations decommitted on the basis of the Ν+2 or Ν+3 rule. However, further delay would also mean a delay in starting programmes, which would be a bad thing for the regions and the poorer Member States. This too is therefore a compelling reason for us to say yes today to this regulation.
Today we are moving from theory to practice. Even the best regulation, let us be frank, may have problems if it is not applied correctly. Consequently, the major challenge which we all face, especially the Commission, the Member States and the regions, is to ensure the regulation is now applied correctly. There are challenges both for the old Member States, which must not repeat past mistakes, and for the new Member States, which must not repeat the mistakes of certain old Member States in connection with the take-up and use of funds.
Parliament will be present throughout this procedure in order to monitor and to call for structural movements for the benefit always of the poorer Member States and regions of the European Union.
Parliament was present throughout this procedure and set its seal on the debates and negotiations: on the initially unofficial consultations we had with the European Commission, on the third cohesion report which followed and on the interim report on the regulation voted through last summer.
Parliament sent out a double message in all these debates: firstly, that the European Union needed a credible cohesion budget; I think we were one of the powers that overturned efforts by certain parties to limit the budget for the new programming period.
The second message was that we needed an effective regulation without unnecessary red tape and, on the other hand, a regulation which would help to put the money of European citizens to good use.
In January, we started negotiations in order to influence the final outcome, following decisions by the European Council, and to incorporate some of our basic positions.
I would like to highlight the constructive attitude both of the European Commission and of Commissioner Hübner and of the Austrian Presidency in these negotiations and to thank both sides for cooperating with the European Parliament.
Today we are being called upon to say yes or no to the text negotiated. As rapporteur for the general regulation, I call on my honourable friends here today to accept this text and to say yes for the following basic reasons:
Parliament, during the course of negotiations on the financial perspective, secured an additional EUR 300 million for transnational and interregional cooperation. In addition, Parliament managed to link financing for projects to access for people with disabilities. For the first time, it is stipulated that projects will not be financed unless accessibility to them for people with disabilities is secured first.
We were also successful in getting civil society involved. Despite the Council's initial resistance, monitoring committees will also be attended by environmental partners, non-governmental organisations and other bodies which represent civil society. In addition, thanks to lobbying by Parliament, infrastructure in regions which are no longer Objective 1 convergence regions may also be financed with the Commission's approval. This is something that all these regions have asked for."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples