Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-23-Speech-4-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100923.2.4-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, in 2005 and 2006, within Parliament and with the Commission, we cooperated quickly and intensively on achieving the objectives of the European neighbourhood policy, including the objective of cross-border cooperation for citizens living in the regions concerned. To do so, we had to be very creative and remain very close to the people. We took the view that the position of the people living at the external borders had to be no worse than that of citizens living at the internal borders. In addition, we had years of relevant experience within the Interreg programmes, and our expectations were high.
Parliament’s engagement is still as great. Yet a few years are needed to get going, and that has been the case here too. Article 30 of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) Regulation lays down that the Commission is to present an evaluation and proposals for modification, and so on, by 31 December 2010. I should like to know whether you are on track with this. Do you mean to comply with the Regulation in this respect? When can we expect to receive this conscious evaluation, as we agreed together?
My second point concerns the answers to the questions on cross-border cooperation. These questions were intended to help us catch up – which, indeed, we are now doing. You have made a tremendous effort, and I am indeed satisfied with your answers regarding the cooperation around the Baltic Sea and that on the Spain-Morocco Programme.
What is the situation now, though? Our Committee on Regional Development presented an interim report back in mid-2009. This included a number of suggestions for striking a better balance that was closer to the people – more decentralised – between financial, planning and bureaucracy inputs on the one hand and the benefit to the people on the other. However, the report revealed that this balance had not quite been struck. We were mired in generalities for a long time and were slow to launch specific projects.
My question, therefore, is as follows: can we now discuss such improvements together in the context of that evaluation? My idea is to proceed along familiar lines in the work of this House – we are in possession of a study – and to hold a hearing in Parliament with the parties concerned from the border regions, perhaps an association of European border regions, the people living in the regions and their representatives. This will enable us to hold discussions with one other, not about outlines or objectives but about constituting a specific evaluation of how well the contacts, for example between universities, hospitals or schools, have got off the ground in the field of the environment, water and so on. That could lead to a real debate – to which we are giving only a small impetus today – on the new programming period and on the crucial issue of what resources are needed.
That is my objective, and I should like to invite my fellow Members to take part in today’s discussion, in order to improve the overall situation and also to make ourselves visible to people in the border regions. I am very grateful to the Commissioner for his answers."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples