Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets for the three proposals we are dealing with today, I would firstly like to express the extent to which I believe the application of Rule 162(a) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedures – enhanced cooperation between committees – has once again been emptied of any meaning. Nobody questions that the aspects of co-financing and degressivity fall within the competence of the Committee on Budgets. Nevertheless, the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport voted on and rejected the amendments by the Committee on Budgets on these two aspects, using the argument that it contradicted the other elements of the report. This is the crux of the matter, and not only with regard to the three reports we are dealing with today, but with regard to enhanced cooperation in general. This procedure is intended to facilitate cooperation between the competent committees and strengthen the role of the committee asked for an opinion. But if, from the outset, there is not enough time to facilitate this cooperation and if, furthermore, it is sufficient for a single amendment to be presented in the committee responsible which contradicts what has been presented by the committee asked for an opinion, Rule 162(a) is automatically negated. This is precisely what has happened in the Committee on Culture in relation to the opinion delivered by the Committee on Budgets. In other words, that after Rule 162(a), we automatically moved on to apply Rule 162, that is, to deliver a normal opinion. I am convinced that it is Rule 162(a) itself that contains the catch, and, in its current wording, all it does is create unnecessary conflicts between committees rather than promoting cooperation between them. I therefore believe that it is essential that, with a view to the future, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs examine this rule, either with a view to revising it, or with a view to completely removing it. Returning to substance of the proposals, I would like to focus on two aspects: co-financing and degressivity, which are the issues that have raised most problems. I am talking about two fundamental aspects of the general system for awarding grants because they allow for the co-responsibility of the beneficiary for the correct use of grants and also ensure that the organisations do not depend solely and exclusively on Community grants in order to operate, thereby promoting their establishment in the future. Furthermore, degressivity allows money recovered in this way to be able, in this case, to be used to subsidise new associations, particularly those in the enlargement countries. The Commission’s proposals therefore provide for co-financing and degressivity in the award of all these grants. Nevertheless, I must express my surprise at the fact that the Commission has applied different percentages in these three proposals, which are the responsibility of the same Directorate-General, both for co-financing and for degressivity. Since Article 109 of the Financial Regulation states that equal treatment must be one of the principles for the award of grants, it is not justifiable that associations with the same objective but which act in different fields should be subject to differing treatment. The amendment approved by the Committee on Budgets called for all associations receiving a grant under any of the seven programmes – in accordance with the various groups of associations identified – should have the same rights and obligations in the aspects of co-financing and degressivity. Furthermore, in the case of co-financing, it was not a question of establishing fixed percentages, but of establishing minimums that would then allow the executive authority to apply percentages in accordance with the real needs or possibilities of each association. I would like to stress that it was not a question of seeking harmonisation, but of applying that principle of equal treatment. For its part, the Committee on Culture eliminates degressivity in its three proposals, believing that all associations likely to receive a grant are of general European interest, within the meaning of the exception provided for in Article 113(2) of the Financial Regulation. I believe that this is too broad an interpretation and I would question whether all these associations are genuinely of European general interest. The Committee on Culture appears to have interpreted the maintenance of degressivity on the part of the Committee on Budgets as a kind of punishment of these associations when in reality it promotes – together with co-financing, as I said earlier – their establishment in the future, since nowhere is it written that these grants should be awarded ad eternum. Otherwise, when the day comes that, for one reason or another, this source of funding runs out, all the associations could find themselves under serious pressure. Finally - as I pointed out in my speech on grants during the last plenary session – lack of time has had a terrible effect on the whole of this procedure. The Commission was under time pressure in presenting its proposals and Parliament has also been under time pressure with regard to the amended proposals we are presenting today. Anybody who has studied them will have realised that they contain more than one contradiction. I imagine that we are all guilty as well as victims in relation to this problem, but what worries me most is the extent to which the European Parliament's position will have been strengthened following tomorrow's vote, because what we have ahead of us, jointly, is a difficult conciliation with the Council, since the latter does not appear to be prepared to give ground on those points which it considers fundamental, such as pre-allocation, co-financing and degressivity, or the programmes’ financial framework. (The sitting was suspended at 8.22 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE