President. The next item is the joint debate on:

- the recommendation, by the Committee on Regional Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (09077/2006 – C6-0192/2006 – 2004/0163(AVC)) (Rapporteur: Konstantinos Hatzidakis) (A6-0224/2006),

- the recommendation, by the Committee on Regional Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94

(09078/2006 – C6-0191/2006 – 2004/0166(AVC)) (Rapporteur: Alfonso Andria) (A6-0226/2006),

- the recommendation for second reading, by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999

(09060/4/2006 – C6-0188/2006 – 2004/0165(COD)) (Rapporteur: José Albino Silva Peneda) (A6-0220/2006),

- the recommendation for second reading, by the Committee on Regional Development, on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999

(09059/4/2006 – C6-0187/2006 – 2004/0167(COD)) (Rapporteur: Giovanni Claudio Fava) (A6-0225/2006), and

- the recommendation for second reading, by the Committee on Regional Development, on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European grouping of territorial co-operation (EGTC)

(09062/2/2006 – C6-0189/2006 – 2004/0168(COD)) (Rapporteur: Jan Olbrycht) (A6-0227/2006).

  Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (EL) 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.

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.

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.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

  Alfonso Andria (ALDE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after more than a year, we are coming to the end of an intense piece of work carried out in close cooperation with many of my fellow Members and with representatives from the Council and the Commission, whom I should to thank. I should also like to thank the Austrian Presidency and I extend my special, heartfelt thanks to Commissioner Hübner, who has always shown herself to be sensitive to Parliament’s requests and willing to debate and to enter into constructive dialogue, which is the real driving force behind exchanges of opinions between the two institutions.

The European Parliament spoke with one voice at the negotiating table with the Council and the Commission, going beyond political affiliations and countries of origin, and thus succeeded in having a greater impact on the results of the negotiation, helping to significantly improve the initial structure of the provisions. Although the Council rejected some important suggestions put forward by Parliament, I personally believe that the texts adequately meet the needs of an enlarged Union. Thanks to the combined efforts of the three institutions, this morning’s vote will mean that Europe has access to new legal instruments that are vital for strengthening solidarity and economic and social cohesion.

With regard to the regulation establishing a Cohesion Fund, for which I am the lead rapporteur, I should like to highlight the importance of the increase in the budget, for which Parliament fought, from EUR 18 billion for the 2000-2006 period to slightly more than EUR 61.5 billion for the next programming period. This is in response to the recipient Member States’ great financial needs in the environmental and transport sectors, with special attention paid to sustainable development, through a form of balanced yet flexible distribution, that is to say, one that is capable of adapting the way in which the Fund is used to meet the needs of each Member State.

Aside from the trans-European networks, it will be possible to use the Cohesion Fund for projects in the transport field, including urban, rail, inland waterway and maritime transport, multimodal programmes and measures that promote sustainable development and that enhance the environmental dimension, with a special focus on the key sectors of energy efficiency and renewable sources.

Parliament’s incisive work has produced positive results on several points. I should like to mention just a few of them that concern both the regulation establishing a Cohesion Fund and the general regulation, for which Mr Hatzidakis is the rapporteur and I am the shadow rapporteur on behalf of my group. Article 14 of the general regulation includes a specific reference to access for the disabled, which from now on must characterise all of the work financed with Community funds. We have succeeded in gaining more recognition for environmental protection and sustainable development, as Mr Hatzidakis just highlighted. I am satisfied regarding these two points, although I would have liked a precise reference to have been made in the main body of the regulation on the Cohesion Fund too. In any case, the reference has been included in the general regulation, and that is already a significant and important result.

Next, with regard to the so-called partnership, there will be greater involvement of bodies representing civil society, non-governmental organisations and associations that campaign for equal rights between women and men, including in terms of cohesion policy.

Finally, as regards the regulation on the European Regional Development Fund, for which Mr Fava is the rapporteur and I am a shadow rapporteur, I look very positively on the inclusion of the reference to the issue of public security in the context of the convergence objective, as a guarantee against Structural Fund-related expenditure processes being infiltrated by organised crime. Furthermore, Parliament’s intervention has meant greater attention being paid to the urban dimension – a topic that Mr Beaupuy, myself and so many others among us hold dear – and has emphasised the way in which a sound programme of investment and management of the funds intended for cities can drive the economic and socio-cultural revival of the suburbs and surrounding rural areas, which are the real agents of sustainable and lasting development in the regions.

To conclude, I should like to add to what Mr Hatzidakis has said and call on Parliament to support the entire package of regulations under discussion today by voting in favour of it.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (PT) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the process leading to the adoption of the new regulation on the European Social Fund is worthy of Parliament’s support.

At first reading, we tabled 84 amendments to the Commission’s original proposal. Of these amendments I should like to highlight one point: the Commission’s original version established a range of measures that were the target of funding but whose actions varied as to whether the region benefiting from the funding was a convergence objective region or one that came under the competitiveness and employment objective.

I oppose this regional difference in principle, on the grounds that, when it is put into practice, it will lead to the creation of a two-speed European Social Fund, and will enshrine a form of indirect discrimination of workers benefiting from the Fund depending on the region in which they work. Both the Commission and the Council have accepted my argument.

Other significant amendments on which the Council and the Commission ultimately accepted our proposals concerned the use of money from the European Social Fund to fund the activities of the social partners. I have always opposed the Commission’s original proposal and suggested a more flexible yet tighter alternative solution that would earmark a suitable amount of resources from the European Social Fund for measures to strengthen the capacities of the social partners, albeit specifying that these activities must relate to training, network integration measures and stepping up social dialogue. On this point too, both the Commission and the Council have accepted our point of view.

Following the normal procedure for a second reading of this new regulation, we ran the serious risk of the essential legal bases that would enable the Member States to use the European Social Fund appropriation from 1 January 2007 not being in place in time. Realising the importance of this, the Austrian Presidency contacted me to start talks aimed at reducing the time normally taken by the legislative process. With the invaluable help of the shadow rapporteurs, I was able to analyse the amendments that had not been addressed by the Council, and to table five points that the Council had not accepted at first reading but that we feel are of major importance.

These points were as follows: strengthening the role of social integration, commitment on the part of the Member States to support priority actions, commitment on the part of the Member States to promote measures in the area of innovation, commitment on the part of the Member States to support transnational and inter-regional actions, and making an appropriate amount of money available for the training and networking of the social partners. I was very gratified to see that the Council agreed with our proposals. Accordingly, Mr President, and given that the commitment to the Austrian Presidency has been honoured, I wish to recommend the adoption of the common position without any amendment.

Mr President, globalisation and technological and demographic evolution have led to far reaching changes to a number of areas of life in our societies. The most important political issue going forward is how to decide the direction of these changes and, in this regard, I admit that much of what is contained in this report is the result not only of hard work but also of detailed reflection on values that largely sum up my view of politics as a public service.

When it comes to values, I am among those who believe that the free functioning of the market alone will never be able to promote the essence of the European project, of which I am a staunch advocate, which is based on the values of peace, social justice, freedom, democracy and respect for human rights.

I should therefore like you to know that this was a further source of inspiration for the new European Social Fund regulation. Lastly, I should like to express my gratitude for the excellent spirit of cooperation shown throughout the process and to Mr Špidla, who is in the Chamber today. I must also express my thanks to the Commission’s services for their willingness to find solutions that were included in the final version but were not laid down originally. Finally, I wish to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mrs Jöns, Mrs Schroedter and Mrs Figueiredo, and to express publicly my appreciation for the help of the Vice-President, Mr Cocilovo, on this matter.

  Giovanni Claudio Fava (PSE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the end of a journey that began in July 2004 with the presentation of the Commission proposals on the new Structural Funds, which, I should like to point out, Parliament has always supported, has sought to improve and has, at any rate, defended by emphasising certain aspects that we regard as important, relating to quality, spending, sustainable development, environmental protection, equal opportunities, access for the disabled, public security and cross-border cooperation.

We have worked alongside the Commission and the Council to ensure that this journey is swiftly concluded, but also, I repeat, to improve some sensitive points that we regard as important in the way in which our regions and our local authorities will use the Structural Funds.

I should like to quickly point out our contribution on some specific points. Firstly, the consultation procedure: we fought to have the procedure extended and supported and to have it include, alongside institutional and administrative topics, new topics that are of importance on the ground: I am referring to non-governmental organisations and to civil society. We believe that the consultation procedure is a great school for democracy and, above all, a great resource in terms of responsibility: extending the scope of responsibility in the management of the Structural Funds is one of the major political challenges facing the European Union.

We have focused on equity, that is to say, on the need to prevent a two-speed Europe, which would pave the way for geographically discriminatory measures. We know that the European cohesion challenge is a difficult one. Enlargement has widened the gap that exists between various geographical areas of Europe, and we felt it important to bridge that gap and to strike an economic and social balance among all of the countries of the European Union, preventing the risk of a two-speed Europe.

We have concentrated on a number of priorities, adopting the Commission’s proposal to avoid turning the Structural Funds and the Regional Development Fund, for which I am responsible, into a kind of 'shopping list' that anyone can access on the basis of the most varied of needs. Instead, we have concentrated on the quality of a few objectives and made sure that quality comes before quantity, and we have done so, too, on the basis of the experience that each of us has committed to memory.

We have held on to the principle of additionality: the Structural Funds are a form of added value, they must not substitute for the current, normal expenditure of the Member States, of the State. In that sense, we must focus more on quality issues regarding this expenditure, as a form of added value.

Finally, Lisbon: Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon does not only represent a competitive Europe, which is capable of getting its own economy off the ground and of pursuing the objective of full and good-quality employment, but it also represents a Europe that is capable at last of investing in knowledge, in intangible infrastructure, in know-how, in processes and technological innovation, and in everything that is today at the heart of the Structural Funds.

The European Parliament’s contribution has been a practical one, including on a number of specific points, insofar as it has paid particular attention to environmental issues, to sustainable development, to urban policy, to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of the European economy, and to security, too. We are pleased that a statement has been proposed that includes our request for special attention to be paid to security, aimed at making our European expenditure impenetrable to organised crime.

We are only partly satisfied, Mr President, because, as you and all of my fellow Members will know, we do not believe that the budgetary resources are sufficient for the challenge we are facing, in spite of the enlargement and in spite of the proposal by the previous Commission, a proposal that is perhaps more generous and more in keeping with the needs of this enlarged Europe of 25. I feel it is worth stressing the European Parliament's sense of responsibility yet again, as other Members have done. It has always tried to cooperate fully and effectively with the other European institutions, has avoided the conciliation procedure and has avoided jeopardising the next programming period.

I should like to thank the European Commission, Commissioner Hübner and the Austrian Presidency. They have acted in the same spirit of cooperation as we have. It is now down to our countries to act; we have the appropriate instruments, we ought to be able to make good use of them.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (PL) Mr President, the legislative work on the package of regulations on cohesion policy for the years 2007-2013 comes to an end today. We all remember the heated debate on the role and significance of cohesion policy in the European Union for achieving the aims of the Lisbon Strategy, as well as the attempts to limit cohesion policy gradually, and even to renationalise it.

Today we are discussing these matters as if they were in the past, but it is useful for us at the European Parliament to remember that implementing the principle of solidarity through cohesion policy, amongst others, is an integral part of the functioning of the European Union. Its form may change, it may be adapted to new objectives, but to undermine it is to negate the basis on which the Community operates. Implementing cohesion policy, therefore, does not simply imply defining the structure of certain funds and the ways in which they are to be used. Most of all, it requires a definition of its current goals. This then needs to be followed by steps to adapt the policy methodology and implementation strategies, as well as by practical measures.

In line with the terms of the Treaties, social and economic cohesion policy can be implemented with the aid of common financial resources. However, it can also be implemented without them, by means of joint activities in various Member States aimed at achieving similar goals. During the current programming period, joint cross-border activities form part of the Community initiative Interreg. This initiative encourages border-region, transnational and interregional cooperation. Experience of Interreg activities shows that cross-border initiatives undertaken jointly by local and regional authorities in several Member States are of great importance to them, as they create cooperation networks and build mutual trust. We can conclude that these activities, which use up few financial resources, deliver considerable added value.

The new programming period should take advantage of this positive experience. Initiatives typically associated with Interreg have therefore been included in the main stream of cohesion policy, within the framework of Objective III. There is also a need to create new legal and organisational opportunities for cooperation partners. That is also the source of the innovative idea of creating a new legal instrument that would support all border-region, transnational and interregional activities. The core of this initiative lies in giving cooperation partners, who do not always use EU funds, an instrument which will make it easier for them to organise different activities, including cross-border public services.

In line with the proposed regulation, and once the objectives and principles of cooperation have been established, public authorities and the public bodies created with their assistance within the European Union, in other words regional, local and national authorities, will be able to sign a suitable agreement which is referred to in the regulation as a convention. They will then be able to register the new institution as European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation. It will have a legal personality which will be recognised throughout the whole European Union, once all the Member States have been informed.

The new regulation will introduce a new legal precedent. It deals with system-related issues and has therefore been met with many expressions of alarm, reservations and even protests. Work on the regulation has been an example of consistent progress towards compromise solutions requiring many concessions and difficult decisions. It is worth emphasising that the proposed solution guarantees Member States full control over the creation and operation of the EGTC. The compromise that has been achieved has not changed the essence of the new solution nor its innovative form.

Today’s vote concludes the legislative work and creates new opportunities. Most of all, it is a way of expressing our appreciation to all those who have, for many years, been building a truly European, decentralised form of international cooperation. As a rapporteur from a Member State that joined the European Union during the recent enlargement, I had the opportunity to get to grips with the complexity of the legislative process. That is why I would particularly like to thank, for their extremely constructive and positive cooperation, Commissioner Danuta Hübner, the representatives of DG REGIO, the representatives of the successive presidencies, especially the Austrian Presidency, the secretariat of the Committee on Regional Development, the political advisors and also my collaborators and experts from Poland.

  President. It gives me great pleasure to be able to welcome for the first time to this House the Finnish Presidency—in-Office, represented by Mr Manninen, the Finnish Government's Minister for Regional and Municipal Affairs.

  Hannes Manninen, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, it is a great honour to be able to speak here in your Parliament as a representative of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The importance of the occasion is highlighted by the opportunity to participate in the final draft of the package of regulations, which is crucial to the Union’s coherence and regional development. The objectives of the Finnish Presidency will be set out by Prime Minster Vanhanen tomorrow.

First, I wish to thank the European Parliament for the very high levels of cooperation it has shown with the Council. Talks on the cohesion policy regulations have taken two years of hard work on the part of the various institutions. If Parliament’s plenary today votes on the package of regulations in accordance with the recommendations of the committees, the reform of the cohesion policy and the implementation of the new programming period can go ahead as planned at the start of 2007.

The European Parliament has had a key part to play in deciding the content of the Union’s new cohesion policy. In the various ways in which it has approached the issue, Parliament has particularly stressed the importance of matters which are crucial for the public and civil society, such as partnership, paying attention to environmental values and the participation of disabled people in the implementation of programmes. It was a precondition for Parliament that the Member States should adhere to consistent practices with regard to the criteria for calculating cofinancing in the Community and management of VAT. Parliament was also active in establishing the regulations pertaining to European grouping of territorial cooperation.

I have mentioned here only a few examples of matters that Parliament has worked to promote. Most of the amendments that Parliament has proposed have been taken into consideration in today’s debate on the regulation proposals.

Besides the adoption of the regulations, we also need Community strategic guidelines on cohesion policy before the legal basis for implementing the programmes is finalised. The Member States will establish their national strategic frame of reference on the basis of such guidelines, and this will guide the drafting of regional development programmes.

We have proposed an ambitious timetable for the adoption of the guidelines on cohesion policy. I trust in the willingness of the various parties to cooperate, and I hope that the fruitful patterns of cooperation with the European Parliament will continue. Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development completed its report on the strategic guidelines back in May. Our objective is to establish the Council’s position some time in July, so that the European Parliament is able to discuss the document right at the start of the autumn parliamentary session. If all parties commit to a speedy schedule, there is every possibility that the strategic guidelines for cohesion policy will be ready by October. In such a case, the Commission can adopt the Single Programming Documents so that they can start to be implemented in early 2007.

Having the Community strategic guidelines on the regulations and cohesion come into force will be the most important regional development goal during the Finnish presidency.

The European Parliament has worked with great determination and flexibility in the reform of cohesion policy. At the same time it has been possible to hold negotiations on the interinstitutional agreement, the regulations and the strategic guidelines. I would like to thank you for your constructive cooperation. I wish to say a special thank you to the Committee on Regional Development for its expert approach.

I also wish to thank the preceding presidencies and the Commission and Commissioners for their valuable work in carrying out the cohesion policy reforms. The Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee are also to be praised in the way they have advanced the cause by raising issues that were close to the regions and the people.

I am certain that the proposed legal basis will provide an excellent starting point for implementing a European cohesion policy which is effective and takes account of the special features of the regions.

(Applause)

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to start by thanking you for your continuous support and encouragement and for the role the European Parliament has played in preparing a reform of cohesion policy.

First of all, let me say how much we appreciate your role in securing a significant financial envelope. Secondly, we appreciate your contribution to setting up a new architecture and also new instruments for this policy. You have insisted on establishing a more ambitious territorial cooperation objective. That objective has a considerable and clear European added value, in particular in the context of the enlargement of the European Union. I am sure that the increase of 4% in the financial resources available for this objective of reinforcing transnational and interregional cooperation, which had suffered the most substantial reductions in the European Council decision of December 2005, will help us to be more efficient and more effective in bringing European regions across the continent together.

In addition, I would like to thank you for your support for developing a unique instrument designed to overcome the problems encountered by Member States, regions and local authorities in undertaking cross-border, transnational or interregional cooperation actions, whether funded by structural funds or not. For the first time ever, the EU will provide an adequate legal framework for enhanced cross-border, interregional and transnational cooperation.

Thirdly, I appreciate your role in ensuring that cohesion policy will apply to all regions and Member States and that it will contribute to more and better jobs and faster economic growth. In this context, I am also very happy that you welcomed our efforts to create new supporting instruments such as ‘Jeremy’ and ‘Jessica’, which will bring in new partners and expertise from European financial institutions. That will address genuine market values and make the structural Funds work much harder.

Let me use this opportunity to express my personal thanks to the rapporteurs, Mr Hatzidakis, Mr Andria, Mr Silva Peneda, Mr Fava and Mr Olbrycht, and to say how much we appreciated the role Mrs Krehl played as rapporteur for the Financial Perspective and her work on the Community Strategic Guidelines. Let me also thank Mr Beaupuy, without whose commitment the urban dimension would probably not be so prominent in our new policy.

It was a pleasure to work with Mr Galeote, Chairman of the Committee on Regional Development, whom I thank very much for his commitment. He always maintained a very constructive and cooperative spirit and we shared the same principles and priorities throughout the negotiations.

Jointly we have managed to avoid a policy based on a system of double standards in the application of the rules on the eligibility of non-recoverable VAT and in the application of the principle of total eligible cost as the basis of co-financing.

We will not have two distinct cohesion policies for Europe, one for the old and one for the new Member States. That would have been, I believe, at odds with our efforts to produce an efficient and coherent policy, with transparency, with sound financial management and with simplified regulations.

You have shared our insistence on the need to strengthen the partnership principle. We have jointly reinforced the role of NGOs, local and civil society and the environmental partners in our policy. With your support we have also strengthened the provisions on non-discrimination and sustainable development. However, there are a number of items where we failed fully to convince our Member States of their added value. I am thinking here of the concept of a Community reserve, of our intention to render the urban dimension of our policy mandatory and of Parliament’s idea of recycling the potentially unspent resources allocated to cohesion policy.

As requested by Parliament, the Commission has prepared a joint declaration in which the Commission commits itself to presenting an assessment of the budgetary execution of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the 2007-2013 programming period, including the consequences of the implementation of the decommitment rule.

Our major concern in the months to come is to ensure that the new, good-quality cohesion programmes will start on time. Much remains to be done. We are working with the Finnish Presidency to ensure that the Community strategy guidelines on cohesion can be adopted by the Council after the European Parliament has delivered its opinion. I understand that we can achieve that at the end of September or early October. The Member States will then formally present their national strategies concerning how they propose to use cohesion policy, after which we will discuss in detail the operational programmes, with final adoption by the Commission.

In order to save time the Commission has already entered into informal discussions. We have already received the draft national programmes from 21 Member States.

We are gradually completing the preparation of the new 2007-2013 generation, but we have to think long-term to ensure that cohesion policy will continue to support convergence and the economic and social modernisation of Europe. The Fourth Cohesion Report – due for publication in spring next year – and the Cohesion Forum to be held at that time will be important steps and will flesh out the ideas for the future.

I look forward to your debate, convinced that your decision today will allow us successfully to finalise preparations for the new generation of our common cohesion policy.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, just like my fellow Commission Member Mrs Hübner, I should like to thank you for your support in recent years. Today, almost two years after the Commission’s proposal, you are set to vote on the package of regulations on cohesion. Thanks to your efforts and support, this is a well-balanced package that represents genuine reform. The European Social Fund (ESF), which celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2007, will retain its role. It will continue to be an instrument providing direct support to individual citizens and as such a key element in bringing the Union closer to the citizens. The funds, and in particular the ESF, must also, however, promote the Community's priorities much more clearly than before. The Commission’s efforts will be channelled into ensuring that the priorities of financing from the funds and of relaunching the Lisbon Strategy run in tandem. At a time when there is fresh work to be done in relation to enlargement, demographic change and globalisation, this is of key importance. In this regard, I should like to highlight the three main elements of the new ESF regulation.

Firstly, we naturally need a strategic approach. During the programming process, the Commission will come to an agreement with the Member States and the regions on the main priorities and goals, which will be fully compliant with the relaunched Lisbon Strategy.

The second is that the new version clearly calls for resources to be focused on the Community's goals under the European employment strategy, including important goals relating to employment in the areas of social inclusion, education and vocational training. The concentration of resources is an essential prerequisite for success.

Thirdly, support for human capital will enable the ESF to contribute significantly towards creating a knowledge-based society. Support for an educated, qualified and adaptable work force, and for innovation, is key if we are to increase employment, productivity at work, growth, social cohesion and social security.

Furthermore, also thanks to Parliament's staunch support, this regulation prioritises improving institutional capacity in the convergence regions and countries eligible for cohesion fund support. I strongly believe that this priority will play a central role in improving the effective functioning of public administration, thereby raising competitiveness and in turn strengthening the development of sustainable jobs and support for social inclusion. I should also like to point out that the ESF is also tasked with reducing disparities in terms of employment at national, regional and local levels. The creation of appropriate qualifications at all of these levels is an integral part of, and contribution towards, the growth and development strategy. These elements are, of course, mere parts of the whole.

Thanks to Parliament, the wording has been tightened in a number of areas. The fund will from now on play a key role in equality between men and women and equal opportunities, by means of special projects and the implementation of these principles in all areas of life. The fund will also support projects aimed specifically at combating discrimination in the work place, which can be linked to the priority of enhancing the social inclusion of disadvantaged citizens, in particular with a view to providing them with sustainable employment. These practical steps help people to develop socially beneficial measures and show how the Fund leads to the sharing of the values on which the European social model was founded. The ESF will also provide special support for the social partners in the convergence regions. Thanks to Parliament, the current wording is totally unambiguous, which is something I welcome. The active involvement of the social partners is therefore a vital prerequisite for well-balanced, harmonious socio-economic development. Furthermore, I should like to thank Parliament for its active support in ensuring that special provisions on partnership are contained in the new general regulation. This is a key principle that applies to all the funds that we are talking about. This principle enables civil society actors to be involved at every stage, namely social partners, civil society, non-governmental organisations and equal opportunities organisations.

One can therefore conclude that extraordinary results have been achieved. Accordingly, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs under the chair of Jan Andersson, which has provided the Commission with a great deal of support. At first reading, it drew up almost 100 amendments to the regulation, most of which were accepted by the Commission. In this regard, I should like to congratulate the main rapporteur, Mr Silva Peneda. We worked together on achieving a particular outcome, and now I should like to focus on the future.

In the coming months, the Member States will submit their national strategic reference frameworks and operational programmes to the Commission. The Member States will thus take important strategic decisions on future investments from public resources. Most Member States have already made good progress in drawing up these documents. However, there is a certain aspect that emerges from contact with the Member States that in my view may be cause for concern. It appears that in a considerable number of Member States, ESF investment in our biggest asset, namely our citizens and their qualifications, could be somewhat lower than it should be. This is highly important, because the right balance needs to be struck between investment in physical capital and investment in people. The way in which we now invest in our workers in the form of vocational training so that they can adapt to new challenges, in education for young and old, and in support for the unemployed with the aim of helping them to help themselves, will help shape our future. This will ultimately have the biggest influence on the wealth and prosperity of our citizens. The Commission will do all that is necessary to ensure that discussions with the Member States achieve a balanced result in line with the priorities of the Community policies and with the shared interests of Europe's citizens.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I should once again like to express my gratitude and appreciation for your support and your successful contribution. I firmly believe that today we are taking a fresh step forward that will lead to an effective EU cohesion policy.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – (PL) Mr President, when we prepared the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, we tabled 32 recommendations.

In our opinion, we focused mainly on how to take the needs of disabled people into account in terms of implementing projects funded in part by money from the structural funds. We also called for the broadening of qualification criteria for funding within the framework of ‘regional competitiveness and employment’ in terms of the level of education available in a given Member State. We also called for administrative procedures concerning the use of structural funds to be simplified. Larger amounts should be paid in advance to the beneficiaries at the start of the implementation process for operational programmes. The so-called multifunding process should be maintained, which provides opportunities to obtain funding for programmes from more than one fund. We also proposed small changes to the reporting procedures, as we are convinced that excessive red tape will not aid the efficient use of European funds which are, after all, the basis for development in many regions.

Not all our recommendations have been accepted, of course, but that is the way of parliamentary business and compromise, which are the basis for decisions in a Community as diverse as the European Union. However, we regard the result of our joint work as positive. We especially welcome the solutions concerning disabled people, social organisations and NGOs, as well as the extremely sensible proposals on the issue of VAT eligibility for certain activities.

Taking this into account, I support Mr Hatzidakis’ motion to vote in favour of the proposed regulation.

  Gerardo Galeote, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I would like in particular to congratulate the four rapporteurs for the regional Funds, and not merely out of courtesy, but because they have done an excellent job, with tenacity and skill, the result of which has been the incorporation of many amendments into the final text, of which the Council has already expressed its approval. It has been an honour for me to lead these debates and hence to be a direct witness to that success.

It is a pity that the governments of certain Member States have been intransigent and that the Council has not been able to accept the institutional declaration, which is exclusively intended to open up a debate on the excesses of the cohesion policy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the discussions in the Council last December on the financial perspective and now on the Regulations on the funds, we have begun to fear that certain governments wish to call into question the most visible and successful of the European policies: the cohesion policy.

I am convinced that the huge majority of Europeans are in favour of solidarity and that our Parliament, always hand in hand with the European Commission – and I would like in particular to acknowledge the work of Commissioner Hübner – will be the guarantor of this essential pillar of European integration and structuring.

  Constanze Angela Krehl, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Hübner, Mr Špidla, Mr Manninen, ladies and gentlemen, today, after months of negotiations and talks, the European Parliament will be adopting the regulations on cohesion policy. I believe cohesion policy to be one of the most important, one of the most positive and, above all, one of the most visible of the European Union’s policies. That means it presents us with an enormous challenge.

The disparities in individual countries have grown larger, and we European politicians have a great responsibility to the people as a result. People are afraid of losing jobs, and they are afraid of globalisation. If we are to make the most of the opportunities that globalisation offers Europe, however, we must help the weakest in the new and the old Member States.

At this point, I would also like to underline the social aspects of cohesion policy clearly once again. We are not making cohesion policy for human capital, as the European jargon has it, but we are making policy for people. That means we must put people at the centre and hence in fact greatly strengthen the social aspect.

We need well-qualified people. People must have access to the ‘Lifelong Learning’ Programme. They must be integrated, they must feel that we are there for them. I think the European Parliament has been very successful in the negotiations. As a result, there will be more participation in future. As a result, Member States will not be treated differently. Sustainability will be written large for us and not seen as a necessary evil.

The urban dimension has been strengthened, just as Parliament has significantly strengthened territorial cohesion, equality of opportunity and non-discrimination. That means we can say with a clear conscience that the Lisbon Strategy is at the heart of our cohesion policy and the people of our Union really do have opportunities for the future.

In one thing, sadly, we have not succeeded: we failed to get the necessary resources we proposed; and we have not managed to get recycling, the reuse of unspent resources within cohesion policy. We do still want to have something to do in the years ahead, however, and that is why we will continue to fight to get it.

Mr Manninen, as rapporteur for the strategic guidelines, I and my colleagues will do all that we can to see that we are able to keep to this ambitious timetable and adopt these policies in October.

(Applause)

  Jean Marie Beaupuy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. (FR) Mr President, Mrs Hübner, Mr Špidla, Mr Manninen, ladies and gentlemen, I can testify to the vigour and richness of the exchanges of the last few months and the last two years, which have resulted today in texts that my colleagues and I think and hope will in a moment be adopted by the European Parliament by a very large majority.

I would like to stress that, throughout this debate, my group has given the greatest possible attention to the need for these texts to be effective. The different speeches that have just been made have made clear the various areas where they need to be just that.

As Mrs Krehl has just indicated, the Structural Funds are a testimony of solidarity with the most disadvantaged regions, so that they can attain an average level of prosperity. As the examples of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and other countries have shown, the development of regions benefiting from the Structural Funds contributes to the development of the European Union as a whole, because of the investments that those regions are able to make.

Today, Mrs Hübner, Mr Manninen, we are going to move on to the second phase. After the theoretical phase of drawing up the Structural Funds, we are entering the preparation phase. Allow me to list three conditions – at an educational level and in terms of providing spurs to action and, if I may say so, tempting incentives - that are necessary if this preparation phase is to succeed.

At an educational level, Mrs Hübner, I know that, with your co-workers, you have already organised a number of conferences to raise awareness. We really must develop this communication strategy, and the document that you have just published takes this approach. We also have to make good practices very widely known. The Member States, the regions and the different actors which are in the process of preparing projects must really have a good knowledge of different practices in order to be able to prepare their projects properly.

Secondly, let us learn how to handle the various incentives available to us. You know - and with good reason - that within the Structural Funds it is possible to have recourse to technical assistance funds. We have noted in the past that a portion of these funds was not used, or was used badly. From now until the end of 2006, and throughout 2007, the technical assistance funds must be used in order to prepare worthy projects.

Thirdly, as we say in France, ‘fear of the policeman is the beginning of wisdom’. The various Member States, project organisers and regions, etc. need to be reminded that if they do not comply with the rules laid down in the regulations, then they will not be able to benefit from the Structural Funds. I regret of course that, as my fellow Members have pointed out, certain Member States have recently refused to recycle funds that cannot be used within the specified periods.

Finally, and to conclude, I cannot but point out, as president of the intergroup, that the European Union has finally recognised the need to bring the Structural Funds into play at the level of towns and regions. Therein, and within the framework of the Lisbon agreement, lies the assurance of improved success in the years to come.

Mrs Hübner, Mr Špidla, Mr Manninen, please be assured that, together with our fellow Members of the European Parliament, we shall help to make a success of the Structural Funds, without however relaxing our vigilance.

  Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, I, too, would like to begin by thanking, on behalf of my group, our fellow Members and in particular the rapporteurs for their close cooperation. I believe it was crucial that in the negotiations Parliament was united in defending the interests of the regions and the people who live there.

It was above all Parliament that ensured that cohesion is and remains the real objective of the Structural Funds, because anyone who puts economic and social cohesion at risk strikes at the very heart of the European Union’s ability to integrate. Enough people have tried.

The Group of Six from the Member States should be mentioned first in this connection. They ensured that there was a massive cut in the Structural Funds and were therefore the first to call economic and social cohesion into question.

Then the Commission also joined in in a big way. Commission President Barroso was looking for money to pay for the Lisbon Strategy, so he helped himself from the Structural Funds. Suddenly, at the end of the negotiations, a list appeared in the documents which tied the Member States down to using the Structural Funds to implement the Lisbon Strategy. The actual purpose of the Structural Funds, to bring about cohesion between the regions and pursue their sustainable development, suddenly became merely incidental. I think it is scandalous not only that Parliament was bypassed when the earmarking list was put in the documents without consultation, but also that the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, should itself sacrifice economic and social cohesion in violation of those Treaties. It is therefore a quite particular success on Parliament’s part that at least the horizontal objective of sustainable development is enshrined in the regulation.

I would also like to draw attention once again to the partnership principle, because it is extremely important that civil society is involved alongside the social partners and that the Member States are required to consult environmental organisations and equal opportunities representatives. I expect the Commission to monitor that.

Finally, I would like to welcome Commissioner Kallas’ transparency initiative. He can count on our support. In future, every Member State will have to disclose who is receiving structural funds and how those decisions are taken.

  Pedro Guerreiro, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Since the outset of negotiations on the Structural Funds for 2007-2013, we have stressed that a properly funded, proactive EU regional policy is a prerequisite for effectively reducing regional imbalances at EU level and for genuine convergence between the Member States.

As regards the Community budget, regional policy should be an instrument of much-needed, fair redistribution, which will at the very least reduce the detrimental impact of the internal market on the economically least-developed countries and regions. Consequently, we must adopt a critical stance as regards this General Regulation on the Structural Funds, which translates into legislative terms the Interinstitutional Agreement on the amounts, the objectives and the implementation rules of the Structural Funds for 2007-2013. This Agreement represents a reduction in the Structural Funds from 0.41% of Community GNI in 2000-2006 to 0.37% for 2007-2013, despite the fact that the need for cohesion is all the greater following the enlargement and that, in view of the economic and social disparities, the trend ought to be upward rather than downward. Therein also lies the reason why, for example, the so-called statistical effect regions, such as the Algarve region of Portugal have not been completely compensated, something that we consider unacceptable.

We also object to aspects such as the subordination of Cohesion Policy to the objectives of the so-called Lisbon Strategy, with the inclusion of the objective of allocating at least 60% of funds in the convergence regions and 75% in the other regions towards funding projects laid down in the Lisbon Strategy. In other words, cohesion is playing second fiddle to competition.

I should lastly like to lend my backing to Mr Henin's remarks about certain cross-border regions, such as Hainaut in France and Belgium, which has differentiated access to the Structural Funds. This situation must be rectified so that the region can grow harmoniously.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, I would like to express my admiration for all the rapporteurs. This marathon, Mr Hatzidakis, has required a lot of effort but has resulted in a reasonable compromise.

The fact that we have managed to achieve a political agreement, which takes into account the majority of reservations expressed by the European Parliament, is a success in itself. We have to be aware that time passes rapidly and that individual Member States need time to prepare their legislative systems in order to be able to make use of these funds before the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective comes into force. Member States need to coordinate these activities with their national strategic reference frameworks. Union resources are used in conjunction with the financial resources of individual Member States themselves, as well as the financial resources of regional and local authorities. If we take this approach to these funds, we will see that there are many fresh opportunities open to us. Some compare these opportunities for positive action to the benefits once brought by the Marshall Plan. This is no exaggeration. All the Member States are counting on these new opportunities, including those countries which, through no fault of their own, spent many years stagnating behind the Iron Curtain. These countries include Poland, and its eastern voivodships in particular.

The European Union now needs real internal solidarity. It needs political, economic, social and territorial cohesion. We are living in regions that have significantly different levels of development and wealth. It is worth remembering that around 27% of the population of the European Union, namely 123 million people, live in areas where the GDP per capita is less than three quarters of the European Union average. Of course we also need to face the challenges of globalisation, competition, science and technology as well as dealing with the demographic crisis, an ageing population, a growing number of disabled people and immigration. We have to be sure that appropriate use of these funds will contribute to solving some of these problems.

Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the need to monitor the legislation adopted and, if necessary, to respond rapidly. Not one euro should be wasted. Not a single opportunity should be missed. This is the best way of bringing Europe closer to its citizens.

  Vladimír Železný, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (CS) Mr President, today’s debate sees the end of a 14—month-plus process of negotiation on general rules on drawing resources from the funds. What we have before us is a sensible compromise. What this means for the new Member States is a reduced need for cofinancing, which has rendered effective drawing of resources from the funds impossible. For example, this will mean a reduction of 15% for the Czech Republic. Private resources could become part of cofinancing. Non-recoverable value added tax will be an eligible cost and the absurd N+2 rule will at least for some time become N+3. Social housing projects that have a direct bearing on the environment will become an eligible cost for the funds. This sounds like the standard conditions that the original Members of the European Community made use of for decades. The ten new Member States, however, were denied them, perhaps in the hope that it would be possible to complicate even further the already difficult process of drawing EU resources, even though these resources formed part of the promise made in the accession conditions negotiations.

Fortunately for the new Member States, it is not only Parliament that is unfairly divided into new and old Member States; this also applies to the Council, which has incorporated this compromise into the new rules. If, however, we leave the Council solely responsible for drawing up reasonable compromises, we will become a superfluous institution, which will simply take advantage of the voting rights of individual delegations to push through rules that will disintegrate the EU still further. The long and, here in Parliament, fruitless 14-month negotiation process has only served to demonstrate how matters in the EU would turn out if we adopted the European Constitution with a majority decision, indeed a decision that is valid here. The majority here in Parliament from the original Member States would impose rules on the weak, the small, the poor and the new. A decision-making process favouring consensus and veto, leading to reasonable compromises in the Council, would be removed from the equation.

IN THE CHAIR: INGO FRIEDRICH
Vice-President

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the amendments to the structural funds that the Council adopted in the recent negotiations. Unlike Parliament, the Council displayed a far higher degree of realism and awareness of the genuine needs of the Member States. I warmly welcome the fact that the Council intends to pay non-recoverable VAT out of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Similarly, the fact that the ERDF will fund housing expenditure, albeit on a limited basis, is something that I welcome as good news for the citizens. Thirdly and lastly, and thanks again to the Council unfortunately, there has been a change with regard to automatic decommitment, in other words from the old familiar N+2 rule, to N+3. The Member States are now in a much better position to realise projects and receive money.

Ladies and gentlemen, the only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Council has shown far greater solidarity than Parliament as regards the negotiations on the structural funds. I strongly believe that we should support the Council position instead of thinking of clever ways of changing the rules and the budget during the funding process.

  Rolf Berend (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, as shadow rapporteur I would like to look mainly at the European Regional Development Fund.

At first reading, the European Parliament adopted a large number of amendments, appreciably changing the Commission proposal, especially in the areas of strengthening the urban dimension, greater protection for the environment and cultural heritage, non-discrimination and the treatment of persons with disabilities, most of which is also brought out in the Hatzidakis report. The possibility of using ERDF aid to assist with the construction of social housing was also accepted.

The Common Position, which was unanimously adopted by the Council, is therefore a satisfactory compromise. The majority of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament were either taken over in full or in part, or the principle of them was accepted. One of the most important changes, which also reflect the outcome of the December 2005 summit on the Financial Perspective, must surely be the eligibility of non-recoverable VAT where there is private cofinancing. To avoid double standards – and that is one of Parliament’s successes – in the coming period this support will apply for all Member States.

My group therefore believes that, in view of the urgency, not only the ERDF Regulation but the whole package of Structural Funds regulations should be adopted as punctually as possible so that there can be no further delay in preparing the operational programmes that are so important for us in the regions and the projects in the regions can begin promptly.

In view of the fact that Parliament has emerged from the negotiations with great success, we recommend acceptance of the Common Position without further amendment.

  Alain Hutchinson (PSE). (FR) Mr President, Mrs Hübner, Mr Špidla, Mr Manninen, fellow Members, let me first of all make a general remark: I would like to draw attention to the splendid spirit that presided over the work of the Committee on Regional Development as it examined the three proposals - which are today being submitted to plenary for the amendment of regulations.

It seems to me that the less than generous nature of the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013 has not prevented us from improving the legislative instruments of this reform – reform that is essential for us, as European Socialists, because it is the expression of solidarity between regions.

Our work has made it possible to emphasise the necessity – as indicated by Mr Beaupuy a little while ago of supporting sustainable urban development in our regions. In this respect it is worth highlighting the increasing concentration of Europeans in cities. We have also been able better to take into account the particular situation of regions that have experienced the painful reality of this statistic and that will benefit from a transitional support mechanism.

Besides the weakness of the budgetary foundation for this reform, allow me to tell you two disappointing facts. The first one is only half a disappointment because it concerns the partial eligibility for housing expenses - eligibility that I fought very hard to bring about. This is cause for celebration, but it is regrettable that eligibility only exists in countries that joined the Union after 1 May 2004. This national distinction is, in my view, dangerous. It is also unjustifiable because the housing crisis is very urgent in certain big cities in the other Member States as well.

The second disappointment: I do not understand why there has been a reduction of the period during which a business cannot relocate its activity if it has benefited from Structural Funds. This period was fixed at seven years by the Commission in its initial proposal and confirmed by the vote of this House, and, in view of recent events, particularly the job losses in Europe caused by relocations, I would ask the Commission to reread the report on relocations, adopted by this House in March.

  Mojca Drčar Murko (ALDE). – (SL) The Regulation on the European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation has undergone many amendments in the debates on the package of cohesion legislation. Understandably, this is a new-generation legal instrument that can support the initiatives for regional cross–border partnerships that are restricted by the diverse nature of national legislations.

However, the final answer to the question as to whether this is an appropriate way to stimulate geographical cohesion can only be delivered by practical experience. The answer will depend on the circumstances in the individual countries. Do they have a central or federal system of government? Are they large or small? Have they been involved in partnership over many years or are they only just beginning cross–border cooperation?

The new groupings introduced by the Regulation will in all probability be built around areas of specific common concern. Their advantage, in comparison with previous cross–border partnership arrangements, is that they raise the stakes where the implementation of mandatory legislation is concerned, thereby increasing the degree of responsibility of partnership bodies, and at the same time tightening up the area of financial responsibility for the management of common resources.

We have reason to believe that supplementary budgetary resources will make an important contribution to the territorial cohesion of the European Union.

  Gisela Kallenbach (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, the Cohesion Fund is an ideal way of putting across one of the European Union’s most important basic principles, solidarity between Member States, to people where they are. I very much welcome the fact that this support is more geared to sustainable development and that sustainable urban transport, energy efficiency and the use of renewable energies are considered key sectors.

The crucial thing for me, however, remains how these principles are put into practice. I am looking very much to the Commission there. Together with the regional players, we will be looking to see whether the eligible environmental and transport sectors are really balanced, whether projects contravene environmental regulations, whether the Gothenburg objectives are complied with and whether there is genuine participation and not just a formal invitation to the relevant partners when programmes and projects are drawn up.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). – (The speaker spoke Irish)

I welcome the Fava report and the Olbrycht report and thank all the rapporteurs. I particularly welcome the efforts to strengthen the social and environmental aspects of the regulations. In dealing with these funds, we have generally fought hard to ensure that the role of NGOs is strengthened and that greater account is taken of the environment and to stress the importance of access for those with disabilities.

In welcoming the report by Mr Olbrycht on cross-border grouping of territorial cooperation, I want to stress that this will be of tremendous benefit to border regions and to divided countries such as my own. Structural funding should be Community-based and Community-driven, with all sections of the Community fully involved in the process.

In my own constituency, we can learn a lot from how other countries empower local communities and local democratic structures. I look forward to monitoring the progress of the new cross-border groupings. In Ireland, they will be particularly important in border counties and in the north-west region, which have experienced deprivation, under-investment and unemployment.

  President. May I inform the House that there was not a problem with the interpreters this time. Mrs de Brún began by speaking Irish. Irish is now an official language. Yesterday the Praesidium decided that Irish may also be spoken in plenary if prior notice is given.

  Guntars Krasts (UEN). (LV). – This is definitely an instance where work by, and cooperation between, the Commission, the Presidency and Parliament can be evaluated positively. Today there is reason to hope that the concerns that protracted discussion of the financial plan would lead to delays in implementing the Structural Funds will prove to have been groundless. I would like to stress here that it is especially important to adopt the Community Strategic Guidelines on cohesion policy, and also to finish work on state aid, and state and private sector partnership legislation. I believe that the compromise achieved for the Cohesion Fund and the large ERDF projects during the transition stage, applying the n+3 principle, is insufficient and must be retained beyond 2010 until 2013. I therefore do not agree with the opinion expressed in Parliament’s report on the Cohesion Fund regulations that the n+2 principle should be applied to all funds, including the Cohesion Fund. It must be taken into consideration that the new Member States lack the practical experience and human resources for managing such projects, and therefore the n+2 principle will be difficult to implement. I support developing closer links between cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy. Both these policies are aimed at increasing economic growth and employment competitiveness.

  Graham Booth (IND/DEM). – Mr President, the last time I saw a printed copy of the budget for the Structural and Cohesion Funds for the period 2007-2013 it stood at EUR 336 billion, with a precise allocation budgeted for each of the 25 Member States plus the next two in the queue, Bulgaria and Romania. Looking at it from Britain’s point of view, it did not make good reading, so I put the following question to the Committee on Regional Development.

I have carefully studied the budget for 2007-2013, totalling EUR 336 billion, which I call Plan A, and I see that EUR 139 billion of the total is being allocated to eight of the latest new Members and another EUR 22 billion to Bulgaria and Romania, with a meagre EUR 12 billion allocated to Britain during that period. If Britain should decide to withdraw from the EU and thus cancel its contribution, do you have a Plan B? There was of course a deathly hush, but such a situation is far from impossible.

When the British public finally realises where all its money is going and when the Health Service in particular is so short of funding, a public call for withdrawal is quite likely.

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel (NI). – (PL) Mr President, the unification process within Europe is far from complete. Regions of the new Member States will continue to trail behind the ‘old Union’ in terms of their levels of economic and social development for many years to come. At the same time, as the European Union, we have to face the challenges of globalisation. This is why we urgently need to adapt our policy areas to a changing reality.

I welcome the fact that the European Social Fund, as the Commissioner reminded us, places emphasis on education and on doing away with inequalities in employment. It has also decided to invest in human resources, providing opportunities for disabled people. New regulations on funds – and funds have always given citizens grounds for optimism – will show that the Union can function effectively, even without a new Constitution, within the framework of the existing Treaties.

  Ambroise Guellec (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, in the words of the President of this House, this debate may be prosaic, but it is important, because what we are discussing is more than 35% of the EU's budget, and I think it would have been worthwhile to devote the whole morning to such a subject. That would also have avoided the situation that some Members find themselves in, of having just one minute to deal with a mission impossible. I myself have two minutes, and I am grateful to those who allowed me this time.

Regional policy is vital for the new Member States, as we know. It is also important for the others, but it is now the implementation that counts, as our general rapporteur Mr Hadzidakis, and the Commissioner, said just now. This implementation must, of course, take place, but it need not necessarily be uniform: the regional priorities must be as variable as the barriers to development.

We all subscribe to the Lisbon Strategy, but the means to make it successful – which it has not yet been – can certainly not be uniform over the whole territory. That is true for all the Member States, not just the newest ones: accessibility for the peripheral regions and the enclaves continues to be a prerequisite for competitiveness and, therefore, for enabling us to get them to meet the EU's general objectives.

That is why a strict application of the earmarking of appropriations, with the associated risk of exacerbating still further the disparities between and within regions, would, in my view, be a mistake. It is vital for regional policy to be visible to and popular with our fellow citizens, in order to avoid further disappointments when they are asked about the future of the Union: in simple terms, we need them to feel involved in the progress of regional development. In this regard, we still have much to do.

  Iratxe García Pérez (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, this debate today is the culmination of Parliament’s work on the extremely important issue of cohesion policy, a policy that involves more than EUR 300 000 million, clearly demonstrating that we are talking about one of the European project’s priorities. Removing territorial differences, supporting infrastructures and the economic and social development of our peoples and regions have been the basis of this work.

We in Parliament incorporated significant changes into the regulations that implement this policy and that have considerably improved its content in terms of the environment, accessibility for disabled persons and the participation of civil society.

We have recognised the differences between regions within the territory of the European Union: rural regions, urban regions, islands, outermost regions, regions with falling populations, etc. Each of them requires specific initiatives.

We should be pleased about the implementation of a technological fund within the framework of the FEDER, with a view to closing the technological gap, as well as about the ‘phasing out’ in the Cohesion Fund, in order to move towards convergence, acknowledging that, though it is clear that countries with more needs require privileged treatment, there are other regions and Member States that need to make progress in this direction.

That is sufficient reason to support this policy fully. That is the only way we can make progress with the idea that more cohesion also means more Europe.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, first I all I wish to congratulate all the rapporteurs on their dedication and commitment. Indeed, I agree with Mr Hatzidakis that they have all run a marathon.

Overall, I must admit to a certain disappointment with the final budget. It is certainly less than the Commission and Parliament recommended. I believe that this will have an impact on the convergence objectives of the funds. As far as Parliament’s work is concerned, however, I am satisfied. We have succeeded in obtaining many improvements. In particular I want to mention partnership, which is crucial because it involves civil society, environmental partners and NGOs working in close cooperation with all the partners. This is a practical demonstration of how Europe can be brought closer to its citizens by involving citizens in the planning and implementation of the programmes, although I agree with Mrs Kallenbach that this must be real, rather than apparent.

I am also particularly pleased that the funds will support accessibility for people with disabilities and will promote integration of the gender perspective. This is a practical example of how Article 13 can be translated into action.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, today represents the end of a good piece of work by this Parliament, a good piece of work by the Commission and a rather less good piece of work by the Council, in particular a number of Member States within it – sadly, my own among them. I assure colleagues that I will not start apologising for the short-sighted mean-spiritedness of the United Kingdom Government, because I have only a minute of speaking time.

This is not the package we wanted, but there is more in it to like than dislike. The strengthening of the partnership principle continues to need defence. Statistical effect is of crucial importance to regions across Europe. Accessibility for disabled people and crucially the abolition of double standards between so-called ‘old’ and ‘new’ Member States are all to be welcomed.

Europe is not about coal and steel any more; it is not about agriculture and fisheries: it is about solidarity and cohesion, it is about where the EU adds value to regional development across the EU. This package takes us forward and my group will be supporting it.

  Kyriacos Τriantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the structural policy of the European Union, as applied today, has limited results because, basically, it is the expression of the social policy of the economic model of free competition derived from the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies.

Enlargement in 2004 brought with it an urgent need to change the current criteria for granting appropriations, in order to take account of the increase in social and economic divergences between the 25 Member States. Divergences are widening to the point at which the criteria no longer apply to regions which still have the same structural problems.

Unfortunately, the Commission and the Council have not taken any decisive steps in this direction. Let us not forget that the European Commission of the Europe of the 15 looked mainly to satisfy the wishes of the old Member States when it came to how appropriations were apportioned and how the contributions of each Member State were calculated.

However, the most important issue which the new proposals fail to address is a change in philosophy of the Structural Funds, from their current auxiliary function to a means of really promoting social and economic development, so that they can become real tools for social policy and for rectifying inequalities between countries and regions.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, by taking the floor in the debate on the regulations on structural fund spending, I would like to draw your attention to three serious omissions relating to the matter. Firstly, the appropriations for commitments under section 1B, namely spending on growth and employment, are over EUR 30 billion less than was previously proposed. This must have resulted in significant cuts to the resources for individual countries. In Poland’s case, these cuts amount to over EUR 3 billion.

Secondly, the dispute within the Council, which went on for many months, led to a serious delay in the adoption of the Financial Perspective. This has contributed to the fact that we are only discussing regulations on the structural funds in the second half of 2006. Thirdly, this delay will mean that the so-called Community strategic support framework will not be drawn up until the autumn of 2006 and the national strategic reference frameworks, prepared by individual Member States, will only be drawn up in 2007. This situation will mean that the procedures for programming resources from specific funds will be significantly delayed. Unfortunately, as a result, 2007 will to a large extent be a wasted year from the point of view of making good use of structural funds.

  Georgios Karatzaferis (IND/DEM). – (EL) Mr President, all these packages are basically dead letters unless we relax the Maastricht indicators. The Maastricht indicators are so suffocating, it is as if we were giving a glass of water to a person whose neck we have put in a noose.

My country is the only country in Europe which is under surveillance, something like a monetary fund. This means that we cannot cofinance the packages in order to get them. We failed to get one-third of the third package, with the consequence that we are selling assets, property and corporations so that we can exist as a state. Nor shall we be able to get money from the fourth package, because we are under this surveillance.

Let us relax the Maastricht indicators at long last, so that we can take up the appropriations, so that we can be active as citizens and as states. It is a gift that is no gift. At the moment, the sums we failed to get from the third package are equal to half the money which my country spends on education and health.

Improve our standard of living for pity's sake!

  Peter Baco (NI). – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating and tomorrow we will be asked to approve the well-drafted reports on structural funds for the 2007–2013 period. In this context and as a citizen of Slovakia, a new Member State in the European Union, I realise the great importance of structural assistance given by the economically strong Member States to the new members. We truly appreciate this assistance to the Slovak Republic: we are grateful for it and feel beholden. In particular, I am pleased by the fact that the agreement between the European Parliament and Council supports the measures proposed by new Member States, also known as the N+3 rules, which address issues such as VAT and housing. This is a good and long overdue solution, as evidenced by the fact that all MEPs from the new Member States voted for these proposals during the first reading in this House. For this reason, the Greens’ report on the general provisions of the Cohesion Fund seems to be a document we would be better off without, and I do not recommend approving it.

  Markus Pieper (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, European structural policy has a secure perspective for 2007-2013. At last! The compromise was a long and tedious process, but the results are plain: the weakest regions will gain from European solidarity. In the economically stronger regions, we support regional competitiveness. In the border regions the EU’s emphasis is on supporting cross-border cooperation.

In that way, Europe seeks to help the regions concerned to get to grips with structural change and overcome high unemployment. That is a challenge, especially when growth rates in many countries are lower than anticipated, and the resources deployed amount to only a few percentage points of the recipient countries’ gross domestic product.

That is all the more reason why we must now press for European money also to be used in the way Europe requires, not squandered on consumption expenditure, not used to finance windfall gains when businesses move in, and not misused by state or semi-state authorities for other than structural policy purposes.

That is why we need an implementing regulation for the Structural Funds that will create transparency. We must all know, and we want to know, precisely what European taxpayers’ money is being used for. Parliament must back the Commission in this sensible initiative, because structural and regional policy can only be successful if we use European money in a controlled and targeted way for the most pressing problems.

  Karin Jöns (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Špidla, Mrs Hübner, the fact that the Commission and the Council have accepted most of Parliament’s amendments on Social Fund reform really shows how well this House has worked. That we have also in the end reached a good compromise on all the points in dispute also shows how well the Austrian Council Presidency conducted the negotiations. All 25 states can be well and truly satisfied with the results of this reform.

Initial and further training and retraining in promising occupations will continue to be supported in the future. But support is also given for the first time for finding better ways of reconciling family and working life, because, as we all know, we need to do more than just provide enough crèche and after-school care places if we want to get more women into work. What we need are new ways of working and new forms of support that are quite specifically geared to this.

However, there also needs to be a closer link with European employment strategy, and social exclusion must be curtailed. In view of the 20 million unemployed and 68 million people living in poverty in the European Union as a whole, particular attention will in future also be paid to the integration of socially disadvantaged groups. The same is true for people with disabilities and now, at the insistence of this House, also for asylum seekers and not only for recognised refugees.

At this point, it should also be pointed out that it will of course in future again also be possible to have projects to combat xenophobia and racism in training establishments and at the workplace.

However, a sound general education is a basic prerequisite for good vocational training, and for that reason money from the Social Fund may now also be used to reform education systems. And for the new Member States I think it is particularly important that we have included the strengthening of the social dialogue and hence of the social partners. In future, no one will be able to steal away secretly, experience speaks for itself. Acceptance has been higher where the social partners have been tangibly involved in the development of employment programmes.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Paavo Väyrynen (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the legislative reforms pertaining to the Structural Funds have had a satisfactory outcome. It was not an easy task, as the views and interests of the new and old Member States had to be reconciled. On the other hand, the needs of the southern and northern regions of the old Member States had to be taken into account.

As the member representing the northernmost country in the committee, I tried to ensure in particular that the sparsely populated regions in the north of Sweden and Finland would achieve an equitable position. The committee reached a position which supported the idea of drawing a parallel between these northernmost regions and the peripheral regions. Cooperation between the Commission, the Council and Parliament ensured that a solution on financing would be reached that would safeguard the position of the sparsely populated regions in the subsequent financing period. In the future we will have to ensure that this support remains as permanent as the natural conditions which are the basis for it.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are voting in favour of a further redistribution of the funds, on the basis of recommendations that our rapporteurs have tried to optimise, particularly at a time of budget shortages, regarding the distribution of resources and main aims.

Enlargement means a greater number of less developed regions to support and therefore fewer resources than before for the less developed regions in those countries that joined beforehand. This must not be underestimated, as often happens.

Despite the partial acceptance of some proposals, the objective of supporting regional policies based on competitiveness, employment, environmental protection and support for the disabled seems sufficiently focused.

The trans-European transport network also remains among the priority actions. In this connection, I regret to point out that, in relation to my country, it is not at all clear whether the current government will be able to make everyone play from the same score, so as not to exclude Italy from the trans-European transport network; if that were to happen, it would also marginalise Italy’s role in the Mediterranean.

I shall vote in favour of redistributing the funds because, in spite of everything, the regional and social development funds and the cohesion fund still represent an opportunity for Southern Italy.

  Oldřich Vlasák (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, following the long months of endless negotiations on the financial perspective, we now have a definitive proposal for a regulation on the structural funds. Even so, one must admit that these documents represent a compromise that emerged with great difficulty though the competing currents of national interests. I should therefore like to commend the rapporteurs, especially Mr Hatzidakis and Mr Olbrycht, who led the most difficult part of the discussion, for their efforts, for their helpfulness and for their ability to take on board the interests of all those taking part.

I personally believe that if the people are to identify with the EU, they need to be made fully aware of the contribution in the individual Member States. The issue of housing is one of the most pressing issues in the pecking order of living needs. Unless high-quality, safe housing can be delivered, people cannot work properly. I am therefore pleased that in the framework of negotiations with the Council and the Commission, we were able to push through our amendments relating to the eligibility of spending in the area of social housing renovations. I also believe it is crucial to pave the way for higher investment in the health system. The obvious rule that only healthy people can be economically active applies here. As a former mayor, I also welcome the emphasis placed by the Commission on the urban dimension of structural policy, which is stronger in the new legislation. Ultimately, these are our cities, and they have a better idea of what activities and projects should be supported for the end users’ benefit. I am afraid, however, that the urban dimension and the partnership principle will be upheld only on paper. In the case of the Czech Republic, I know how unwilling the State is to invite our cities to take decisions on the form that operational programmes will take – and this applies to the regions too. I therefore believe it would be beneficial for the Commission to analyse the extent to which the urban dimension is achieved in the individual Member States.

  Zita Gurmai (PSE). – (HU) The dream of Robert Schumann and Jacques Delors is coming true. The European Union no longer has borders which divide people and nations and cause conflict, presenting an obstacle to trade, as well as political and cultural rapprochement.

Europe's citizens are increasingly able to live within the boundaries of natural regions, which have not been formed through political tyranny and the shifting of borders after wars, but rather as a result of natural and historical development. In the spirit of subsidiarity, regions often use cross-border cooperation to carry out their normal business. This is one of the greatest achievements of the EU.

With Romania and Bulgaria joining the EU in 2007 and Croatia joining later, this cross-border cooperation will take on an even greater significance for Hungary. For Hungarian communities living close to Hungary, but outside its borders, a Hungarian population of several million people who live in Romania, Slovakia and other neighbouring countries, joint developments have a significant impact on the transformation of borders into virtual boundaries.

Joint planning and implementation strengthen their sense of identity, as well as cooperation with peoples who have been coexisting for centuries. They help dispel prejudices which have been causing ethnic and minority problems for a long time. The historical regions where the peoples and nations of Central Europe have lived together for centuries are being restored. Economic necessity is reinforcing cohesion between the nations living in the common European family.

Cross-border cooperation in Europe is a logical and good solution for establishing reasonable cooperation between the multifaceted civil organisations and local authority and government bodies in various locations, and for the extension of the principle of equal opportunities. I cannot help but support this, and I am pleased that the European Union is providing significant support for it.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too am delighted at the presentation of the package of almost EUR 308 billion, which on its own represents more than a quarter of the EU's total budget.

Although some Members of this House find it regrettable that the Council rejected the performance reserve, which would have enabled us to strengthen the economic lever effect, we can say this morning that the reports presented to plenary are satisfactory in that they allow us to move forwards in order to be operational in January 2007. It is now up to us to ensure that the appropriations are spent as effectively as possible. It is also up to us to promote the projects that provide the greatest added value, and, in particular, to give them greater transparency in order to show our fellow citizens what Europe is doing for them.

Finally, to conclude, because we have to keep our speeches very brief, may I remind you that, following the long fight over the financial perspective, we now have to win the battle for the EU's own resources. When we call for more money, it is because many of us are convinced that the Europe we are building is not only a Europe of peace and cohesion following enlargement, but also the most appropriate area today to combat the effects of globalisation, by promoting not only growth but also employment for our fellow European citizens.

  László Surján (PPE-DE). – (HU) [The start of the speech is inaudible.] …and thanks to having good rapporteurs, we have managed to catch up. It now depends on the national governments whether the new regional policy can be launched in 2007. Their job is to make sure that the national development plans are ready and are based on consensus, and, especially in the new Member States, to make up for the lack of progress that we have seen in the past few years. They have not been successful so far, but they can achieve success now.

I welcome the fact that the series of ‘Christmas presents’ given to new Member States – at the time of the Council negotiations in December only for the purpose of acquiring votes – are now being made available to the EU-15 too. These benefits are now available to all Member States. I am pleased that Parliament has also found a way to support the systematic regeneration of neighbourhoods inhabited by the less well-off. In doing so, it has also managed to address the specific situation of the hasty, excessive privatisation of housing in a number of new Member States.

I support all efforts to ensure total transparency. Where assistance is involved, there is also the risk of corruption. Openness is particularly important in countries that had been controlled by a single-party system for decades, in order to avoid even the semblance of the governing parties continuing the management and money allocation practices of the previous single party.

Good laws are being drafted, but we must have a mid-cycle review of how successful the cohesion policy is. If required, we will be ready to make it even better.

  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE). – (HU) I would like to join my colleagues too in welcoming the constructive cooperation of the Council and Parliament.

I welcome that within the European Social Fund the Council and Parliament have not just supported efficiency and competitiveness against job creation, but also the inclusion of the vulnerable groups in society. In fact, competitiveness and social cohesion can only be seen as joint goals, which is why we are Europeans. This is how we can make sure that the divisions do not split Europe in two – into new and old Member States, as it had been predicted by many – while ensuring that the internal incidences of poverty and lack of prospects disappear within the individual Member States, too.

Based on the framework regulation, we can now ask the question: what would ensure a European quality of life for every European citizen? I myself will try to help answer this.

  Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, this proposal from the Commission and the Council that we are debating today in this House at second reading is the clear result of our commitment to enlargement of the European Union.

Nevertheless, I can and must express my concern about the fact that the requests from the European Union’s island regions that their structural problems be recognised have not been included. These problems result from the island regions’ geographical, natural and permanent conditions and special characteristics, which slow down their economic development.

Declaration 30 of the Treaty of Amsterdam acknowledged that the structural disadvantages suffered by the islands should be compensated for by means of specific measures in favour of those regions, with a view to integrating them into the internal market under the same conditions as the other European regions, improving their access to continental markets and creating a territorial, sectoral and temporal balance in their economic activity.

Nevertheless, in this case, once again, the specific measures necessary to compensate for the natural, structural, geographical and permanent disadvantages suffered by these island regions have not been taken. It is precisely the permanent nature of these problems that makes these specific measures necessary in order to alleviate and correct the inevitable extra cost of being islands.

For all of these reasons, Mr President, I wish to condemn the fact that, in the drawing up of the regulations on the Funds, account has not been taken of the need to implement a more intensive cohesion policy in those regions suffering from these natural disadvantages, such as the islands. This has been done in the case of the outermost regions, which have been granted favourable treatment.

What we are asking for for other island regions, although they are not so far away from continental Europe, are measures similar to those provided for the outermost regions. We are not talking about granting privileges, but about compensating for the obvious difficulties faced by our islands.

  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by commending the hard work of our rapporteurs and fellow Members who have made it possible to improve the Commission's proposal from the perspective of partnership, non-discrimination and, above all, balance between the regions of the old and new Member States.

It is, however, regrettable that the sums devoted to this major EU policy do not match our ambitions.

In addition, whilst urban policies have been at the heart of a number of debates, the same has not been true of the rural world, the future of which is now linked to the second pillar of the CAP, even though its appropriations have been drastically cut. We therefore need to ensure that the Structural Funds mesh well on the ground with the new agricultural Rural Development Fund.

Finally, I find it regrettable that the Council has decided to earmark the appropriations of the regional policy for the Lisbon objectives on a massive scale, and, what is more, that they did not really consult Parliament regarding the classification of the spending.

We must remain vigilant, to ensure that the operational programmes in our regions are sufficiently flexible to take account of structural investments, which are still necessary, and of social solidarity.

Finally, I would remind you that, whilst this reform must, of course, contribute to the objectives of competitiveness, it must, above all, contribute to economic, social and territorial cohesion.

  Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with today’s decision, Europe has decided to invest in a cohesion policy that is rich in prospects, by allocating EUR 308 billion to objectives relating to convergence, social cohesion and the promotion of territorial cohesion.

In the European Union of 25, 123 million people, equivalent to 27% of the total population, live in regions with a pro capita GDP of less than 75% of the Community average; of these, two-fifths live in regions belonging to the old Member States. Cohesion policy helps distribute the benefits of European economic development, by anticipating change and helping areas that are in difficulty, often for structural or geographical reasons. This cohesion policy helps limit the negative effects of globalisation.

One can only support the recent reform of the Structural Funds, those crucial instruments of cohesion policy, because it leads to more efficiency, transparency and accountability. The management system has been simplified, with the introduction of differentiation and proportionality in the context of sound financial management, in line with the requests for simplification made by the main actors of cohesion policy: the Member States.

The new reform is based on the Lisbon and Gothenburg priorities: employment and research, innovation and sustainable development. The intention has been to invest in human capital, innovation and the promotion of the knowledge society, entrepreneurship, environmental protection and other areas besides. There are, in fact, countless new elements, such as the creation of three new objectives: reducing the number of Structural Funds, strengthening the partnership, allocating more financial resources to islands and regions with geographical handicaps and protecting ‘phasing-out’ regions, which will soon no longer be eligible under the convergence objective.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, today’s debate is the culmination of two years’ work on structural fund reform. Today we can say that, following difficult negotiations concerning the Financial Perspective and the entire legislative package on cohesion policy, we have achieved a good compromise. For the years 2007 – 2013, nearly 36% of the European Union’s budget has been earmarked for structural funds. This, in fact, amounts to EUR 308 billion. This figure is smaller than we had hoped, but it does provide a basis for drawing up long-term development plans, something that is particularly important for the poorest regions in Europe.

New regulations will facilitate the pursuing of a simpler cohesion policy that is closer to the citizens and that takes into account the problems of the new Member States in particular. These problems include VAT eligibility criteria, municipal issues, creating equal opportunities for disabled people and taking their needs into account. Creating territorial cohesion in a European Union where there are great differences in levels of development will not be an easy task. Although we already have a legal framework and earmarked funds, we still need the wholehearted commitment of our national and local governments in order to make the best use of the unique opportunity we have created together to foster regional development in the EU. I would like to congratulate all the rapporteurs. This is another considerable step forward in the history of Europe.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, unemployment in the euro zone may well be lower than ever, but it still stands at 8.8%, and it is for that reason that the Structural Funds and the Social Fund need to be put to work to improve the employability of the people of our Europe. I am grateful for the amendments that have been made and also to the rapporteur, Mr Silva Peneda, who has embarked on this debate with a great deal of commitment and energy.

The Social Fund now concentrates on globalisation and on improving people’s employability. It can help with getting them access to work, with the prevention of unemployment, with extending working life and getting more people – women and older people in particular – into working life.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE). – (HU) Cohesion policy could be a symbol of a European mentality, because it is based on open solidarity extending to every region of Europe, especially if the funds are accompanied by regulations that allow even the poorest regions of Europe to use the development opportunities provided.

Two years ago ten new Member States joined the European Community, typically with poorer regions. The regions in these countries have followed a different development path to those in our Western Member States. As a result, they also have different problems which we have had to solve. Through the work we have done over the past two years, which have included major debates and battles, we have managed to create flexible, effective legislation, which can also resolve the new regions' problems. We have every reason to celebrate this agreement.

If we win the vote tomorrow we will be able to outline an unprecedented prospect for every region in Europe. We can create jobs, we can build roads, we can renovate housing. In fact, we can start building a new Europe, and we can bring Eastern and Western Europe closer together not only politically, but also in terms of the quality of life of our citizens.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, regional policy is second only to the agricultural budgets in constituting the most important European investment in terms of integration and achieving the Lisbon and Gothenbourg objectives. For example, the funds payable under competition policy in Objective 2 areas, together with the research and development budgets, form the basis for a development of cohesion policy up to 2013, as well, I think, as thereafter.

Although, as we heard today, transparency and the production of results will take centre stage over the coming years, not least in the debate on the mid-term review of 2010, what the European people want is for Europe to become visible and tangible. This is what Plan D – with D standing for development – is about; it is about more than just the pumping out of money from funds, contrary to what the Member States say as they, meanwhile, collect more money with scarcely any sense of responsibility about it, and the promotion of Europe is not forthcoming.

I have a question for Commissioner Hübner: can she produce additional initiatives on behalf of the public, as regions and cities have just done? The public and the partners in regional policy ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteurs on the excellent job which they have done throughout this period. The cohesion tools, the Structural Funds, are what brings Europe close to the citizens.

It is particularly important that the European Parliament managed, through long and difficult negotiations, to introduce important qualitative changes to the texts of the regulations, changes which will help to improve the quality of life of the citizens and to create actions and plans which will not result in divergence, changes which promote sustainable development and the democratisation of procedures to apply the funds through an enlarged partnership and the participation of representatives of civil society.

At times of crisis and European scepticism, such successes are important and we all need to work not only on promoting them, but also on ensuring they are applied properly.

The new programming period is difficult. The resources allocated to cohesion are inadequate and inequalities in terms of development are acute. It is very important, therefore, to have decentralised, flexible procedures with as little red tape as possible which ensure that these resources reach end users in less developed regions in the old and new Member States and are not refunded to the rich countries.

  Hannes Manninen, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, I would like to thank the Members of the European Parliament for their wide-ranging and creditable contributions. It shows that Parliament has taken a thorough and diverse interest in these matters.

It has been agreeable to note that one broadly unifying factor is the notion that cohesion policy should not be implemented as an end in itself. Rather, the main aim is to bring about equality between people, for their benefit, and to achieve concrete results.

Another central issue, which I mentioned in my opening address, is partnership and civil society. A third issue worth mentioning is the environment, sustainable development and security. All these factors will bring the European Union close to the people, as a means of helping them, and they will be an opportunity for making the relationship between the public and the European Union a closer one.

In addition, I wish to make a brief comment, mainly on two matters: the recycling of unspent resources, and the Lisbon objectives and the Structural Funds.

For the first time, the Council adopted a position on the matter of the recycling of unspent resources when it was negotiating the interinstutional agreement, and that position was a negative one. Owing to repeated requests to do so by the Committee on Regional Development, the country holding the presidency at the time once again raised the matter for debate by the Council’s Committee of Permanent Representatives. This committee at the time rejected the European Parliament’s proposal almost unanimously. The delegations also refused to make any statement on the matter.

As I understand it, Parliament and the Commission are to make a joint statement on this issue. This, I think, is a good way to proceed. The Council, however, will not be able to agree with the contents of the statement, as there is no genuine desire in the Member States to discuss the recycling of unspent resources midway through the programming period.

The Lisbon objectives for growth, competitiveness, and employment should not, in my opinion, be regarded as opposites within the social and regional dimension. On the contrary, the Lisbon objectives, once properly implemented, will ensure that special regional features are taken into account and that in the future too, effective cohesion policy will be pursued.

My views on the matter can be debated in greater detail at the meeting of the Committee on Regional Development next Monday in Brussels, which I will be attending. Finally, may I warmly thank everyone for their high levels of cooperation.

(Applause)

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to share five brief points with you.

First of all, I would like to say that the process that has brought us to this stage of preparation for the next generation of cohesion policy clearly proves that the Community method works and that the European institutions have the capacity to find the consensus that is needed.

Secondly, what I see today is that we have a policy for the whole territory of the European Union, a policy adapted to the challenges of globalisation, of enlargement, of increased diversity, consistent with the principle of equity, adaptable to very different regional contexts and responding to the needs of territories and cities.

Thirdly, I leave this debate with a full awareness of your preoccupations: those related to specific situations in individual regions, those related to the need for flexibility on various aspects and those related to the links between the Lisbon Agenda and cohesion policy. We will keep them in mind, both whilst negotiating the programmes and during the implementation process.

Fourthly, I am sure that the Members of the European Parliament will play an active role in promoting this policy in their constituencies, through dialogue with citizens and with all partners. We very much count on you.

Fifthly, the challenge now is to work towards timely implementation, to reinforce management and financial control structures in the Member States and regions to share experience and the lessons already learned, to maximise the benefits derived from good experience and to eliminate the risk of problems recurring.

We have made this policy a major contributor to Plan D, and we are open to working further with you on it.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I have taken part in your debate with interest and I warmly welcome the emphasis placed on social cohesion. I feel that the main priority at the moment is to pave the way for the most effective practical implementation of Europe’s structural and cohesion policy. We must also hold a dialogue with the citizens that is as open as possible, and develop as far-reaching a concept of partnership as possible, which in effect is what has been emphasised and put forward in the proposals. I feel that once we move to the implementation stage, we will enter the next important phase, namely the preparation of further strategies. I am very much looking forward to working with you on implementing these strategies and looking for control mechanisms, as well as seeking new strategies. After all, life does not stand still and new challenges will certainly arise.

  President. The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place in a few minutes’ time.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) The regions are the building blocks of Europe; cultural differences and the promotion of regional diversity are among the main characteristics of the Union. I am therefore pleased that more than one third of the Union’s budget has been allocated to the Structural Funds for the new 2007-2013 period.

Supporting regional identity while pursuing convergence at a European level with regard to development and improving conditions for growth and employment is, in fact, an essential precondition for achieving the Lisbon objectives and boosting the economy, especially at local and regional levels. It is actually the small-scale realities in Europe that drive the market, and the idea of strengthening competitiveness and involvement at this level, by promoting the partnership between public, private and non-governmental actors operating at a regional level, can only foster economic recovery, and that would benefit the Union overall. I hope that the regions will take up this challenge and be able to transform the suggestions and resources provided by these institutions into definite plans for economic and social development, aiming above all at full employment and at the intelligent, sustainable use of the abundant high-quality human, artistic and natural resources that are available to us.

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – The structural funds are essential for ensuring that the enhanced prosperity engendered by the single European market is spread move evenly and that less prosperous regions are helped to catch up.

The creation of a market at European level implies a European responsibility to ensure that all regions benefit.

My own constituency of Yorkshire and Humber has benefited immensely from the European structural funds. South Yorkshire has had the highest level of targeting – ‘Objective One’. Much of the rest of the region has also benefited. We will be welcoming Commissioner Hübner to the region later this year to see some of the impressive projects that have been financed.

Although the accession of the new Member States has meant a re-focusing of these funds, I am delighted that the new package agreed for the next seven years will continue to see a continuation of this funding for Yorkshire and the Humber at a substantial, albeit reduced, level.

  Bogdan Golik (PSE). – (PL) I would like to express my support for the Commission proposal on establishing a Community legal instrument in the form of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation. I wholeheartedly support this initiative. It stems from a need to improve current solutions and overcome difficulties in territorial cooperation resulting from the different legal systems and procedures.

I am convinced that this new initiative will make cross-border, interregional and international cooperation easier and more efficient. The Treaty objective of achieving greater social and economic cohesion became particularly important after 1 May 2004, when the European Union welcomed 10 new Member States, including Poland. The poorest regions of the European Union lie precisely within the borders of these new Member States. However, we cannot look at them from a purely economic point of view. We need to see the cultural heritage of these regions and how much they have to offer their partners in cooperation. Legal and administrative problems should not be allowed to impede progress and should be solved in a more effective manner than they have been to date.

I hope that the regulation on establishing a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation, which represents nearly two years of legislative work, as well as the common position drawn up by the Council and the excellent reports drafted by Mr Olbrycht and adopted by the European Parliament will allow us to achieve this goal and create a model for European integration based on solidarity and harmony.

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE). – (FR) The European Council in December 2005 laid the foundations for the programming of the Structural Funds until 2013. The package devoted to the four French overseas departments has been maintained at the same level as the 2000-2006 period, thanks to a sum of EUR 2.83 billion.

I would like to emphasise this almost completely steady figure, which is due to the eligibility of the French overseas departments for the convergence objective and to their status as outermost regions, at a time when all regions in mainland France, and many regions in the EU, have unfortunately seen their aid cut considerably.

France, Spain and Portugal managed to get a specific allocation created to take account of the additional costs associated with the disadvantages of the outermost regions. I find the lack of visibility of this new measure in the general regulation regrettable.

I call on the European Commission to show a degree of flexibility in implementing this aid, the procedures for which are included in the ERDF Regulation, because these additional operating costs do not exactly lend themselves to arithmetic quantification.

The overseas departments perform extremely well when it comes to managing European structural aid, in that they use the funds provided to them regularly and well. It is up to them to continue to make good use of those funds.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President