Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | REGI | MCCARTHY Arlene (PSE) |
Legal Basis RoP 132
Activites
-
1995/07/17
Final act published in Official Journal
-
1995/06/29
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
T4-0329/1995
summary
The report by Mrs Arlene McCarthy (PSE, UK), which was adopted by the European Parliament, noted that several of the recommendations put forward by the EP with regard to the Fourth Periodic Report had been taken over by the Commission in the Fifth Periodic Report. It emphasised that investment in education in the less-favoured regions was a vital requirement for the improvement of employment prospects and to boost competitiveness. As a result, a larger proportion of public budgets should be earmarked for human resources, to provide support for teaching, training and research, whilst incentives should be provided for SMEs. The report regretted that the positive moves towards nominal convergence at national level were not paralleled by real convergence at regional level, that important aspects (e.g. state subsidies and the informal economy) had still not been included in the report, that there were significant disparities in research and technological development, and that economic and social disparities between the richest and poorest regions remained wide. With regard to this last point, the EP called on the Commission and the Member States to coordinate macroeconomic and Community policies more effectively in order to tackle unemployment in the regions and called on the Commission to put forward proposals for policies to support regional convergence. In particular, the report called on the Commission to: - analyse in greater detail the factors which supported competitiveness in the less-favoured regions, with a view to better targeting of structural actions; - draw up a report assessing the job creation impact of structural fund actions; - undertake a comparative analysis of the performance rates of the regions in comparable situations; - involve both sides of industry and local and regional authorities in planning activities; - undertake an assessment of Member States' structural interventions in beneficiary regions and strengthen controls and penalties for the improper use of funds by Member States; - anticipate the future reform of the Structural Funds and undertake a study of the eligibility criteria of the Funds with a view to ensuring a higher degree of effectiveness and a noticeable concentration of funds; - examine the impact of a future enlargement of the Union on structural fund policies. Finally, the EP called on the Member States to prevent any misuse or misappropriation of Structural Funds. �
-
T4-0329/1995
summary
- 1995/06/28 Debate in Parliament
-
1995/05/24
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- A4-0125/1995
-
1994/12/16
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
1994/07/19
Non-legislative basic document published
-
COM(1994)0322
summary
The fifth Commission report on social and economic developments in the regions confirms that the policy of social and economic cohesion needs to be pursued because there are huge disparities between the regions, despite the reduction in differences between them in terms of per capita income. In addition, the economic recession has exacerbated differences in unemployment rates between the various regions since 1991. The Commission notes that a good many Objective 1 regions have converged with the more prosperous regions in the Community. This applies to Ireland, Spain and Portugal. By contrast, the situation in Greece, southern Italy and Northern Ireland is far less encouraging, in that the economic performance of these regions appears to be deteriorating. One reason for regional disparities identified by the Commission is that, compared with other parts of the Community, Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal have relatively few roads and motorways, but spend more money on improving road and rail networks than other European countries. However, investments in the telecommunications sector tripled between 1989 and 1993 (especially in Spain and Portugal) and good progress is being made digitalizing connections. One of the main difficulties in the weakest regions is still a lack of access to RDT activities and the lack of financial institutions willing to underwrite innovative projects, hence the need to create an appropriate system of technological transfer (transfers of qualified personnel, small-scale projects, measures for the benefit of SMEs). Finally, the Commission stresses that the creation of the single market has attracted investment to the weakest regions of the Community (mainly in Spain, Ireland and Portugal, less so in Greece). All the less prosperous Member States are net recipients of direct foreign investment flows, as are, for example, Belgium, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. In the weakest Member States, most investment comes from Community partners, while the United Kingdom is the main recipient of direct foreign investment from third countries.�
-
COM(1994)0322
summary
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(1994)0322
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A4-0125/1995
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0329/1995
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
REGI/4/05883New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 132
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 132
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|