Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, as you all know, the objective of the Cohesion Fund is to contribute to economic and social cohesion and at the same time reduce regional and social disparities, through solidarity amongst the Member States. Thanks to this fund, numerous countries of the European Union have had the opportunity to try to lessen the distance between themselves and the wealthier countries, and the results have been spectacular but insufficient. The income per capita has increased from two thirds to three quarters of the Community average and the participation of the European funds in the growth of each of these four countries stood at an average of 0.5% per year. However, we should point out two problems for the future. Firstly, the incorporation of new countries, which means that the countries which currently benefit from the Cohesion Fund may find that they will no longer be in receipt of those Funds before they have achieved the objectives of real convergence. In this respect, we should consider a series of programmes for the future which will allow the new Members to achieve convergence with the European Union while, at the same time, the four countries which receive Cohesion funds should continue to receive them so that they can achieve the true objectives of convergence, growth and the generation of full employment. Secondly, another problem is the temptation of some wealthier countries to penalise those countries which, since they receive Cohesion Funds, have achieved nominal convergence on the basis of serious, responsible, sympathetic and rigorous structural and economic policies, but clearly still without achieving true convergence, by eliminating them, in this case, from the Cohesion Fund, which could give rise to two possible situations. Firstly, they may opt for less rigorous and more inflationist policies in order not to lose those funds. Secondly, growth and convergence with the other countries of the European Union may come to a halt in some countries. It would therefore be good to distinguish, Commissioner, between true convergence and nominal convergence. Lastly, I would like to take up a series of recommendations regarding the Cohesion Fund. Firstly, we should make greater investment in the railways, ports and maritime transport. Secondly, transport aimed at the integration of peripheral regions, islands and outlying areas should become a priority. Thirdly, we should pay greater attention to sustainable means of transport. Fourthly, we need to take more action in the field of reforestation and land reclamation. Fifthly, we must tackle the problem of the treatment of residues and solid waste. Lastly, as we pointed out previously, we need more investment in urban centres. I would also like to point out that, tomorrow, four amendments will be presented, two of them approved in committee as well as two new ones which are before the House. My position – the reasons for which I have explained in committee – is not to accept them, since in general terms they simply propose new criteria. We are talking about the Cohesion Fund and the 1998 audit, on which there is a regulation and criteria which have already been approved for 2000-2006 and we do not believe that this is the moment to change the criteria with regard to eligibility and the distribution of those funds.

Political group: PPE-DE