The first structured dialogue on the suspension of Spanish and Portuguese structural and investment funding commitments for 2017 (ESI funding) in Strasbourg on Monday 3 October delivered only a general failure on the parts of the European Commission and the European Parliament to understand one another and failed to bring any clarification of the Commission position on the nature of the suspensions and the timelines envisaged. A second meeting could, then, come quickly.
The message from MEPs to the College of Commissioners was very clear: suspending ESI funding commitments for Spain and Portugal in 2017 would be “unfair”, “absurd” or even “dangerous”, as the deputy chair of the regional development (REGI) committee, Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL, France) said. Others, such as Lambert van Nistelrooij (EPP, Netherlands), highlighted the inconsistency of such a decision: it would amount to penalising regions for policies pursued by national governments. And it would be all the more incomprehensible, in the view of van Nistelrooij, as the two member states were absolved of any blame in August with the decision not to impose penalties on them (see EUROPE 11605). “Do not mistake the guilty party”, said van Nistelrooij.
The Commission, represented by Vice-President Jyrki Katainen and Regional Policy Commissioner Corina Cretu, saw things altogether differently. The two commissioners first of all stated that any such decision would have no impact on the implementation of forthcoming programmes since it was a suspension of commitments and not of payments. Cretu added, however, that the effects would be felt only at the end of 2020, leaving the member states sufficient time, in her view, to put in place corrective measures.
Katainen stated that the decision to suspend commitments – if it were to be taken – would not be a “sanction”, since it did not relate to payments. Lastly, he argued that the regional and national levels together formed “one single economy”. Consequently, the principle of macroeconomic conditionality is perfectly consistent, he said.
The two commissioners were particularly evasive on the nature of the suspension and the date on which the Commission proposals would be presented. Cretu said that the suspensions would be proportionate. No precise date was given. The only deadline coming up is the submission by member states of their draft budgets by 15 October (see EUROPE 11618).
Proposal from Pervenche Berès. French MEP Pervenche Berès (S&D) proposed a compromise that won a degree of support from among MEPs: impose a zero percent suspension. In this way, there would be no circumvention of Article 23 of the regulation on common provisions, since no thresholds or timescales are stipulated. However, the proposal would seem to go against the "spirit" of the regulation, the commissioners stated.
Spanish and Portuguese finance ministers could be heard by Parliament. Following the structured dialogue, a meeting of coordinators was held to take stock and determine the next steps. The chairs of the two committees involved in the structured dialogue (REGI and ECON) will write to the Conference of the Presidents on the content of the exchanges. EUROPE has seen a copy of the letter. The MEPs set three stages. Firstly, they propose inviting the finance ministers of Spain and Portugal to appear before them. They will then ask the Commission for further details on implementation of Article 23 and, on the basis of the response, will decide whether or not to convene a second meeting with the Commission. The form of the Parliament’s final position has not yet been defined. It could take the form of a resolution or, alternatively, a letter could be sent to the Commission, EUROPE has been told.
The two commissioners have undertaken to report back to the College on the structured dialogue meeting. According to a source, no definitive proposal will be brought forward by the Commission until the structured dialogue is completed.
A degree of uncertainty hangs over the procedure to be followed. A source close to the matter has said, however, that it is not surprising that Parliament and the Commission are feeling their way forward as this is the first time that Article 23 has been invoked. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)