4 Amendments of Jean Marie BEAUPUY related to 2008/2055(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that, for many years, EU regional policy has demonstrated to the European public its unique European added-value by effectively promoting economic and social cohesion across the EU, whilst at the same time contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs and the Gothenburg objectives for sustainable development; opposes, therefore, any attempt to re- nationalise this Community policy; reiterates its long-standing position that cohesion policy should relate to the whole of the territory of the EU and that the larger part of the financial resources available should be concentrated on the needs of less-developed regions;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that cohesion policy still needs to be reinforced and that greater emphasis should be placed on the value added it creates; calls, therefore, for sufficient financial resources to be allocated to cohesion policy at Community level;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the need, while taking action against fraud and irregularity, to simplify the procedures for the implementation of Structural Funds, especially the management and control systems; notes that the complexity of the system is to a certain extent responsible for the poor absorption by the Member States of the available resources; urgwelcomes the Commission to p's rescent without further delayproposals for an early review of Union cohesion policy, to include concrete proposals for simplifying relevant procedures which should be implemented immediately;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. .Recalls that, during the negotiations for the Regulations on Structural Funds 2007- 2013, Parliament put forward in the context of an informal trilogue, a proposal for the reallocation of unspent resources that are lost because of the N+2 / N+3 rule to the Community cohesion budget (Heading 1b) and to other operational programmes with a better record of absorption and for the creation of a Community quality and performance reserve, which would be a mechanism for rewarding progress; greatly regrets that thisese proposals wasere not considered at the time by the Council; calls on the Commission, in its forthcoming mid-term review, to respond to Parliament’s proposal and to make specific proposals for the reallocation of these resources.