Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if economic and social cohesion is rightly called the core of European policy, then it is safe to say that the Structural Funds act as its pacemaker. We are talking today about the functioning of a political instrument which we have since, with Agenda 2000, replaced with a new and we hope better one. Nevertheless, it is the duty and the right of this Parliament to review the Structural Funds by means of their annual reports and to derive political requirements from those reports, even if they appear to have been overtaken by events. We believe that the rapporteur, Mr Turco, has done an excellent job on both counts in his report on the 10th Annual Report on the Structural Funds, 1998. The many amendments made by Members of this House have substantially enhanced the report. I do not want to repeat here those criticisms which have been recorded and can be checked Mr Turco and others Members have already reiterated these criticisms. However, I would like to strengthen one demand, and that is the demand that in its next report the Commission should devote a special section to reporting on the measures which it has adopted in response to criticisms voiced by Parliament in previous years. The 11th Annual Report should, therefore, at the same time include a progress report. Because time is short, I only want to address four problems and approaches which we think point to the way forward. Firstly, the period covered by the report, 1998, was notable for the fact that it was only possible to achieve total implementation of appropriations for the entire programming period by means of last-minute measures. Experience has shown that we need special strategies for the initial and concluding stages of programming periods and a flexibility mechanism for crisis situations like those which arose in 1997/98. Secondly, the principle of additionality is one of the main pillars of our structural policy, and I do not want to undermine it. Nevertheless, there is a yawning gap between rhetoric and reality. For example, in the case of Objective 1 areas, it is frequently only partly true to say that there is an independent structural policy to which the European component is added. This is often because all the funding available in political terms has already had to be committed to guarantee adequate cofinancing, and rightly so. However, when it comes to the principle of additionality, this means, if I may resort to a metaphor, that it is like me being given a suit by Europe to complement a tie that I can afford myself at regional level. The forthcoming enlargement will add to this problem. So as I see it, we need a new definition of additionality. This might perhaps be something along the lines of additional European added value, which is already a prerequisite for the framework research programmes and for the Community INTERREG initiative, for example. Thirdly, we believe that the principle of partnership with local and regional authorities and with the two sides of industry is heading in the right direction and should be further strengthened. We need both more local initiatives and pacts and a regional debate about priorities for a given region. In this way our structural policy itself will contribute to regionalisation. Structural policy simultaneously reacts to and creates regional structures. Fourthly, controls and assessments are the alpha and omega of any structural policy that has the noble objective of making itself superfluous as quickly as possible. Even if there are marked structural differences between regions, this should not stop us from looking for common evaluation methods and indicators. Only in this way can we make horizontal comparisons between strategies and projects between Member States in individual areas of activity. The previous speaker mentioned this problem. Benchmarking should also be possible in this policy area soon.

Political group: PSE