Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since 1988 the European Union has been supporting studies and pilot schemes designed to foster regional development at Community level. These studies and pilot schemes subsequently developed into a laboratory of innovative measures. Two of the products of this development are the Community initiatives Interreg and URBAN, both of which have exemplified how experience can be amassed through the testing of new strategies and methods and then used to improve existing regional policies. Effective social partnerships and closer local and regional cooperation are among the main fruits of this innovative activity. The basis of my report is a proposed communication from the Commission to the Member States setting out the implementing provisions for the financing by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) of innovative measures for the period 2000-2006, for which guidelines were agreed in Berlin. I should like to focus particularly on two aspects of the Commission proposal. The first is the substantive realignment of the initiatives. In accordance with the proposal made at the Lisbon Summit that support be given to promote the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society within the Community, the ERDF-sponsored innovative measures are to be restructured, the eight subject areas being concentrated into three priority areas of technological development. This approach should have our support, because the gap between developed and backward regions is far greater in terms of technological development than in terms of Gross Domestic Product. To illustrate this, let me say that spending in recent years on research and development in the 25 least-developed regions of the EU has amounted to only a quarter of the European average. This is reflected in the percentage of the working population who are employed in the various fields of new technology, namely 14.6% in the 25 most highly developed regions as opposed to 4% in the 25 poorest regions. The complexity and diversity of technological change and the structural adjustment processes demand the involvement of all relevant players at the local and regional levels in development partnerships, rooted in strategic policy blueprints that must be drawn up for the development of each region. I attach particular importance to the inclusion of young people as one of the target groups of the innovative measures defined in the guidelines, since they are the future engines of development. For that reason, we should endorse the call for the responsible authorities at national, regional and local levels to ensure, by their own efforts and with the aid of all available EU support mechanisms, that the same terms and conditions are created throughout the EU for the acquisition of modern information technology by educational establishments. To my mind, a major and unacceptable defect in the support policy of the European Union is the disparate administration of programmes. While the Commission proposes a switch from project-based to programme-based funding, on which opinions may well be divided – I, for one, believe that it represents a loss of European added value, visibility and closeness to the people and, moreover, not all Member States have established the requisite regional authorities – the financing of innovative measures from the European Social Fund remains project-based. Accordingly, when one and the same programme is financed from both funds, it will be subject to two diametrically different implementation mechanisms. This situation impairs efficiency, creates incompatibility and undermines efforts to cut red tape. And so to my second point, namely the funding of innovative measures. Although only one per cent of the total ERDF budget was available for innovative measures in the period from 1994 to 1999, the Commission has now reduced the funding for the years 2000 to 2006 in what can reasonably be called a drastic and intolerable manner. First of all, the funds estimated at EUR 800 million which were originally earmarked for Agenda 2000 in the Berlin guidelines were cut to 400 million at the last minute because of an appropriation to the URBAN programme, admittedly at the insistence and in the interests of this Parliament, which had fought to save the URBAN initiative. The House had also fought, however, for the reduction of the funds available for innovative measures to be offset by means of resources from the flexibility instrument, a demand which is recorded in a declaration on the financial perspective in the Interinstitutional Agreement. And there is more to come. Although the letter sent to Parliament by the Commission on 5 September 2000 proposing the guidelines for innovative measures under the ERDF still referred to EUR 400 million, back in May 2000, in its review of the use of the Structural Funds during the period from 1994 to 1999, the Commission had proposed the withdrawal of EUR 160 million from this allocation to cover outstanding liabilities for the period from 1994 to 1999. This need had arisen because of the Commission's failure to make timely provision at the end of 1999 to cover this particular commitment. As the Court of Auditors noted in its annual report, other options were available which would have avoided the need to resort to the allocation for the current period from 2000 to 2006 in order to meet this legal obligation. This is an absolutely improper piece of cross-subsidisation between the Berlin and Edinburgh packages. In its proposal 40/2000 for a transfer of appropriations, the Commission reshuffled its resources in an extremely opaque manner in order to authorise the payment of these missing appropriations at the expense of the present programme of innovative measures and technical assistance. Not even a letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, Mr Hatzidakis, was able to prevent the Committee on Budgets from giving its consent. All we can hope for now is that the Commission will honour its pledge to use the flexibility instrument to replace these diverted funds over the coming years and make them available once again for innovative measures under the ERDF. But I do not believe this will actually happen. Indeed, the Commission, having initially cut the budget on its own initiative, will find it almost impossible to secure the replenishment of these funds at a later date. Lastly, I should like to say that I am able to support all the amendments, since none of them are inconsistent with the general thrust of my report.

Political group: GUE-NGL