Regional policy: new powers to parliaments should boost efficiency

The timing of the meeting is important, said EP Regional Development Committee Chair Danuta Hübner (EPP, Poland), stressing that the debate would contribute to the reshaping of  EU cohesion policy, currently under discussion as part of the review of EU's financial regulation planned for 2013, and to the planning of the EU's long-term budget for 2013-2020.

 

 

The "subsidiarity watchdog" role of national and some regional parliaments was enhanced by the Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, noted Mrs Hübner. Although subsidiarity requires the EU to act only where aims cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States acting alone, it should be seen as a "way to co-operate between different levels" of government and "share competences better", rather than "not allowing the EU to intervene" she added. 

 

The Lisbon treaty, for the first time enables national parliaments to comment on legislative proposals independently from governments, and, in extreme cases to block EU legislation, added Mrs Hüber. The European Parliament's legislative and budgetary powers are also enhanced, since Parliament now decides on cohesion policy on an equal footing with the Council, she added.

 

 

The treaty also makes "territorial cohesion" an EU objective in its own right, noted Regional Development Commissioner Johannes Hahn. A clear view of what "territorial cohesion" means has yet to be agreed, but this objective does link up with the "need for stronger and more multi-level governance", with greater involvement of regions and co-operation among them, he said. Mr Hahn also stressed the need to address the problems of all regions and for an integrated approach that encompasses all growth-promoting measures in a given region, rather than focusing on specific sectors.

 

 

The verification procedures that structural and cohesion fund users must comply with are too complex and focus on administration and accountancy, rather than results, observed Giancarlo Giorgetti (Italian Chamber of Deputies, Budget Committee). "There are no tools to verify the ex ante and ex post efficiency of funds, and this must change" he said. 

 

 

Many speakers agreed that while diverse regions need specific approaches cohesion policy should be accessible to all Member States. Even "prosperous" northern Member States have specific difficulties, e.g. due to sparse population or remoteness noted MEP Riikka Manner (ALDE, Finland).

 

If EU cohesion policy after 2013 concentrates only on some specific regions it will become a threat, argued Vytatutas Kurpuvesas (Lithuanian Parliament), adding that  per capita GDP should remain a key criterion in distributing funds.

 

Recognising territorial cohesion as a common EU objective will make it easier to take account of regions' specificities, noted Rudy Demotte (Minister-President of the Belgian Walloon Region and the French Community).

 

 

Views differed on the future funding of cohesion policy. "Structural funds can be instrumental in fighting crises. I don't think the EU can afford to limit structural funds, because it would limit growth," argued Władysław Ortyl (Polish Senate). "We need to look at why the Lisbon strategy did not work", take account of the "financial limits" and "must know how to choose", said  Anna Zalewska (Polish Lower House). Other speakers advocated setting clearer objectives in order to limit expenses.

 

Summing up, Mrs Hübner said: "We all can say that the Lisbon Treaty can bring progress the way cohesion policy is conducted," but how the new possibilities are used, "fully depends on us: the European Parliament, in particular the Committee on Regional Development, and what will be done at the Member States' level."