Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism deal on a regular basis with the monitoring of how the European regional and structural policy is implemented in political and budgetary terms. In all the years in which I have been following this process, one problem has always been pre-eminent, namely that of the hesitant and delayed realisation of the various European programmes, expressed in concrete figures in the RALs. That is what Mr Pittella has elucidated in precise terms in his very fine report. Commissioner Barnier, you said that you expect the position with regard to 2003 to turn out better. It is indeed the case that a number of points show improvement, but I ask you to note that, in the year up to 20 September this year, the RALs for Objectives 1 and 2 have increased. INTERREG’s flow of appropriations is overwhelming; Objective 2’s is inadequate. Over and over again, the problems are the same. When it adopted the Berlin agenda for the period 2000-2006, the Commission made a series of changes to the planning, administration and realisation of a whole range of programmes. Today, I believe, we can already see how inadequate those changes were. Economic and social cohesion, one of the cornerstones of EU policy, is already, in an EU with fifteen Member States, exposed to severe strain, let alone what will happen in an EU of twenty-five. If we want to face up to this challenge and retain the solidarity principle, the existing rules will have to undergo fundamental changes. Taking the first of these, the economies of most of the Member States are in a crisis situation. The Member States’ budgetary discipline, as demanded by the Stability and Growth Pact, is pro-cyclical in its effects. Governments are restricted as to what they can do to fund national development programmes. Gaps are becoming apparent in their capacity to cofinance, with a consequent increase in the amounts of European funds left unused. Can we draw from this the conclusion that the Member States no longer need the money? No, we cannot. It follows that greater flexibility must be permitted in the Stability Pact both as it relates to investments and to cofinance. Secondly, although I have always been, and still am, a defender of the ‘n+2’ rule for the current planning period, I urge that it be handled in a more flexible manner, for example, that it be, in exceptional cases, deferred to ‘n+3’ or, indeed, that funds be released to those countries and regions that can guarantee that they will be applied in due time and order. Finance ministers should not be able to celebrate annual injections of billions of euros into their national economies just because EU funds have not been used within the deadlines. Thirdly, just like the rapporteur, I regard it as necessary to simplify the implementing regulations and those on the transfer of responsibility for the monitoring of funds and their use in an appropriate and flexible way. Fourthly, I should like to say what I expect the Commission’s mid-term assessment to include, particularly with a view to a detailed analysis with reference to those countries, regions and programmes that contribute to the problem with unspent funds. With the prospect of Parliamentary elections in 2004, we have to prove to the public that we are capable of using tax revenue properly, efficiently, and in a targeted way. If we fail to do so, we will have lost some of the justification for our own existence.

Political group: GUE-NGL