Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-24-Speech-2-188"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-24"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2007. eelarveaasta üldeelarve projekt (III jagu) – 2007. eelarveaasta üldeelarve projekt (I, II, IV, V, VI, VII ja VIII jagu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061024.31.2-188"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-24-Speech-2-189⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Neena Gill⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I should like to make three points. Firstly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for increasing payment appropriations for priority programmes linked to the Lisbon Agenda, like the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are key initiatives that not only provide work for Europe’s valuable and highly skilled scientists but also prepare the EU to face future challenges as a global leader. We should not overlook the significant and positive impact that they have on our regions and their populations. Secondly, I commend this report for the concern it expresses for the Galileo Programme, which has been under-funded in the 2007 draft general budget. This showcase EU programme is a major technological, economic and political challenge and we really need to be sure about it. I do not understand why we are prepared to cut funding in this area. It would be an embarrassment for the EU if this project were to stall or fail due to lack of financial backing. Thirdly, since many areas, such as the ones I have just mentioned, require increased funding, I do not understand why, when the ITRE Committee’s request is for a smaller budget, this does not come from the Security and Space Research programme, where we should reduce payments and not increase them. Turning to more general non-ITRE issues, on the structural funds I support the call in this report for an increase in payments. This is the one area where ordinary citizens see the difference EU policies make to their everyday lives. My own region, the West Midlands, is a case in point. EU funds have acted as a catalyst in re-energising the potential and development of local communities. On external affairs, Asia is one of the largest and most populous regions in the world. It contains 60% of the world’s population. So I am amazed that the Commission has cut funding. Last year money for the tsunami disaster was taken from other Asian programmes without any increase and this year, because the tsunami funding has decreased, the Commission has cut the funding again. Has the Commission forgotten that the money is desperately needed by the Asian programmes which were sacrificed, where the EU is committed to meeting Millennium Development Goals? I ask the Commission to justify this. I welcome this report’s call for transparency in the allocation of funding for information and communication. We need full transparency across the board, so EU taxpayers’ money spent on EU policies should be totally traceable and published on the Internet. Then we can see exactly how much money goes to whom. This applies equally to the Members of this House and especially to agriculture. Finally, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Elles and Mr Grech, on producing excellent reports. I thank them for their hard work."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)²² chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-21--2007-03-13)²² unknown; Labour Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² substitute; ITRE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2007-03-13)²² member; BUDG (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should like to make three points. Firstly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for increasing payment appropriations for priority programmes linked to the Lisbon Agenda, like the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are key initiatives that not only provide work for Europe’s valuable and highly skilled scientists but also prepare the EU to face future challenges as a global leader. We should not overlook the significant and positive impact that they have on our regions and their populations. Secondly, I commend this report for the concern it expresses for the Galileo Programme, which has been under-funded in the 2007 draft general budget. This showcase EU programme is a major technological, economic and political challenge and we really need to be sure about it. I do not understand why we are prepared to cut funding in this area. It would be an embarrassment for the EU if this project were to stall or fail due to lack of financial backing. Thirdly, since many areas, such as the ones I have just mentioned, require increased funding, I do not understand why, when the ITRE Committee’s request is for a smaller budget, this does not come from the Security and Space Research programme, where we should reduce payments and not increase them. Turning to more general non-ITRE issues, on the structural funds I support the call in this report for an increase in payments. This is the one area where ordinary citizens see the difference EU policies make to their everyday lives. My own region, the West Midlands, is a case in point. EU funds have acted as a catalyst in re-energising the potential and development of local communities. On external affairs, Asia is one of the largest and most populous regions in the world. It contains 60% of the world’s population. So I am amazed that the Commission has cut funding. Last year money for the tsunami disaster was taken from other Asian programmes without any increase and this year, because the tsunami funding has decreased, the Commission has cut the funding again. Has the Commission forgotten that the money is desperately needed by the Asian programmes which were sacrificed, where the EU is committed to meeting Millennium Development Goals? I ask the Commission to justify this. I welcome this report’s call for transparency in the allocation of funding for information and communication. We need full transparency across the board, so EU taxpayers’ money spent on EU policies should be totally traceable and published on the Internet. Then we can see exactly how much money goes to whom. This applies equally to the Members of this House and especially to agriculture. Finally, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Elles and Mr Grech, on producing excellent reports. I thank them for their hard work."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Jeg vil gerne sige tre ting. For det første vil jeg gerne takke ordføreren for at forøge betalingsbevillingerne til højt prioriterede programmer i forbindelse med Lissabon-dagsordenen, som rammeprogrammet for konkurrenceevne og innovation og det syvende forskningsrammeprogram. Det er afgørende initiativer, som ikke bare giver arbejde til Europas værdifulde og højt kvalificerede videnskabsmænd, men også forbereder EU på at møde fremtidige udfordringer som global leder. Vi bør ikke se bort fra den væsentlige positive virkning, som de har på vores regioner og deres befolkning. For det andet anbefaler jeg denne betænkning for den interesse, den giver udtryk for angående Galileo-programmet, der har været underfinansieret i udkastet til budget for 2007. Dette mønster-EU-program er en væsentlig teknologisk, økonomisk og politisk udfordring, og vi må virkelig være sikre på det. Jeg forstår ikke, hvorfor vi er parate til at skære ned på finansieringen på dette område. Det vil være flovt for EU, hvis dette projekt ikke kan gennemføres eller får fiasko på grund af mangel på finansiel støtte. For det tredje, eftersom mange områder såsom dem, jeg lige har nævnt, trænger til forøgede bevillinger, forstår jeg ikke, at når Udvalget om Industri, Forskning og Energi anmoder om et mindre budget, hvorfor dette så ikke kommer fra sikkerheds- og rumforskningsprogrammet, hvor vi bør reducere betalingerne og ikke forøge dem. For at gå over til mere generelle spørgsmål uden forbindelse til Udvalget om Industri, Forskning og Energi, støtter jeg under strukturfondene opfordringen i denne betænkning til en forøgelse af betalingerne. Det er et område, hvor almindelige borgere ser EU's politikker gøre en forskel for deres daglige liv. Min egen region, West Midlands, er et eksempel herpå. EU-midler har virket som en katalysator for igen at få sat skub i mulighederne og udviklingen af lokale samfund. Angående udenrigsanliggender er Asien en af de største og mest folkerige regioner i verden. Der lever 60 % af verdens befolkning. Så jeg er forbløffet over, at Kommissionen har skåret ned på finansieringen. Sidste år blev pengene til tsunamikatastrofen taget fra andre asiatiske programmer uden nogen forøgelse, og i år har Kommissionen, fordi pengene til tsunamien er blevet formindsket, igen skåret ned på bevillingerne. Har Kommissionen glemt, at der er desperat brug for pengene til de asiatiske programmer, der blev ofret, og hvor EU er forpligtet til at leve op til milleniumudviklingsmålene? Jeg vil anmode Kommissionen om at retfærdiggøre dette. Jeg glæder mig over opfordringen i betænkningen til gennemskuelighed i fordelingen af midler til oplysning og kommunikation. Vi trænger til fuld gennemskuelighed over hele linjen, så EU's skatteyderes penge, der anvendes til EU's politikker, kan spores helt og fuldt og offentliggøres på internettet. Så kan vi se nøjagtigt, hvor mange penge der er gået til hvem. Det gælder også for medlemmerne af Parlamentet og i særdeleshed for landbruget. Endelig vil jeg gerne komplimentere begge ordførerne, hr. Elles og hr. Grech, for deres udmærkede betænkninger. Jeg takker dem for deres store arbejde."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Ich möchte drei Anmerkungen machen. Zunächst möchte ich dem Berichterstatter dafür danken, dass er Zahlungsermächtigungen für vorrangige Programme im Zusammenhang mit der Lissabon-Agenda wie das Programm für Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Innovation und das Siebte Forschungsrahmenprogramm aufgestockt hat. Das sind Schlüsselinitiativen, die nicht nur Arbeitsplätze für Europas wertvolle und hoch qualifizierte Wissenschaftler sichern, sondern auch die EU auf künftige Herausforderungen als weltweit führende Kraft in diesem Bereich vorbereiten. Wir sollten nicht außer Acht lassen, welche beträchtliche positive Wirkung sie auf unsere Regionen und deren Bevölkerung haben. Zweitens verdient der Berichterstatter unsere Anerkennung dafür, dass er sich besorgt zum Programm Galileo äußert, für das im Entwurf des Gesamthaushaltsplans für 2007 zu wenig Mittel vorgesehen sind. Dieses Renommierprogramm der EU stellt eine enorme technische, ökonomische und politische Herausforderung dar, und wir müssen uns hier wirklich sicher sein. Ich verstehe nicht, weshalb wir bereit sind, in diesem Bereich Mittel zu kürzen. Es wäre für die EU peinlich, wenn dieses Projekt aufgrund fehlender finanzieller Untersetzung zum Erliegen käme oder fehlschlagen würde. Drittens verstehe ich angesichts der Tatsache, dass viele Bereiche – wie beispielsweise die eben von mir genannten – zusätzliche Mittel erfordern, nicht, wieso – wenn der ITRE-Ausschuss Haushaltskürzungen vorschlägt – dies nicht aus dem Programm für Sicherheit und Weltraumforschung kommt, wo wir die Zahlungen verringern und nicht erhöhen müssten. Was nun allgemeinere und unseren Ausschuss nicht unmittelbar betreffende Belange angeht, so unterstütze ich in Bezug auf die Strukturfonds die in diesem Bericht gestellte Forderung nach einer Aufstockung der Zahlungen. Das ist doch ein Bereich, wo die Bürger spüren, wie sich die Politik der EU unmittelbar auf ihren Alltag auswirkt. Meine Region, die West Midlands, ist dafür ein gutes Beispiel. EU-Mittel haben maßgeblich zur Wiedernutzbarmachung des Entwicklungspotenzials der Kommunen beigetragen. Ein Wort zu den Außenbeziehungen. Asien zählt zu den größten und bevölkerungsreichsten Regionen der Welt. Dort leben 60 % der Weltbevölkerung. Deshalb erstaunt es mich, dass die Kommission Kürzungen vorgenommen hat. Im vergangenen Jahr wurden Mittel für die Tsunami-Katastrophe von anderen Asien-Programmen ohne jede Aufstockung abgezogen, und in diesem Jahr hat die Kommission die Mittel nochmals gekürzt, weil weniger Mittel für die Tsunami-Opfer bereitgestellt werden. Hat die Kommission vergessen, dass die Asien-Programme, die geopfert wurden, dringend auf die Mittel angewiesen sind, wo sich die EU zur Erfüllung der Millenniums-Entwicklungsziele verpflichtet hat. Ich bitte die Kommission, dies zu begründen. Ich unterstütze die Forderung des Berichts nach Transparenz bei der Zuweisung der Mittel für Information und Kommunikation. Wir brauchen durchgehende Transparenz. Die Verwendung europäischer Steuergelder sollte vollständig nachprüfbar sein und im Internet veröffentlicht werden. Dann kann man genau sehen, wer wie viel Geld erhält. Das gilt ebenso für die Abgeordneten dieses Hauses und insbesondere für die Landwirtschaft. Abschließend möchte ich den beiden Berichterstattern, Herrn Elles und Herrn Grech, zu ihren ausgezeichneten Berichten gratulieren. Ich danke ihnen für ihre harte Arbeit."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να θίξω τρία θέματα. Πρώτον, θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω τον εισηγητή για την αύξηση των πιστώσεων πληρωμών για προγράμματα προτεραιότητας που συνδέονται με την ατζέντα της Λισαβόνας, όπως το Πρόγραμμα Ανταγωνιστικότητας και Καινοτομίας και το έβδομο Πρόγραμμα Πλαίσιο για την Έρευνα. Πρόκειται για καίριες πρωτοβουλίες που δεν επιτελούν μόνον έργο για τους πολύτιμους και υψηλής εξειδίκευσης επιστήμονες της Ευρώπης, αλλά προετοιμάζουν επίσης την ΕΕ να αντιμετωπίσει τις μελλοντικές προκλήσεις ως παγκόσμιος ηγέτης. Δεν θα πρέπει να παραβλέπουμε τον σημαντικό και θετικό αντίκτυπο που επιφέρουν στις περιοχές μας και τους πληθυσμούς τους. Δεύτερον, επιδοκιμάζω αυτήν την έκθεση για την ανησυχία την οποία εκφράζει για το πρόγραμμα Galileo, το οποίο υποχρηματοδοτήθηκε στο σχέδιο γενικού προϋπολογισμού για το 2007. Αυτό το ευρωπαϊκό πρόγραμμα βιτρίνα αποτελεί σημαντική τεχνολογική, οικονομική και πολιτική πρόκληση και πρέπει να είμαστε πραγματικά βέβαιοι για αυτό. Δεν καταλαβαίνω για ποιον λόγο προτιθέμεθα να περικόψουμε τη χρηματοδότηση σε αυτόν τον τομέα. Θα ήταν ντροπή για την ΕΕ εάν αυτό το πρόγραμμα καθυστερούσε ή αποτύγχανε λόγω έλλειψης οικονομικής στήριξης. Τρίτον, δεδομένου ότι αρκετοί τομείς, όπως αυτοί που μόλις ανέφερα, απαιτούν αυξημένη χρηματοδότηση, δεν κατανοώ τον λόγο για τον οποίον, όταν η Επιτροπή Βιομηχανίας Έρευνας και Ενέργειας ζητεί μικρότερο προϋπολογισμό, αυτό δεν επιτυγχάνεται από το Πρόγραμμα Ασφάλειας και Διαστημικής Έρευνας, στο οποίο θα έπρεπε να μειώσουμε τις πληρωμές και όχι να τις αυξήσουμε. Στρεφόμενη σε γενικότερα θέματα που δεν εμπίπτουν στην αρμοδιότητα της Επιτροπής Βιομηχανίας Έρευνας και Ενέργειας, όσον αφορά τα διαρθρωτικά ταμεία στηρίζω την έκκληση στην παρούσα έκθεση για αύξηση των πληρωμών. Αυτός είναι ο μόνος τομέας στον οποίο οι απλοί πολίτες βλέπουν τη διαφορά που έχουν οι ευρωπαϊκές πολιτικές στην καθημερινή τους ζωή. Η δική μου περιφέρεια, τα West Midlands, είναι ένα παράδειγμα. Τα ευρωπαϊκά κονδύλια έχουν δράσει ως καταλύτης στην επανεργοποίηση του δυναμικού και της ανάπτυξης των τοπικών κοινοτήτων. Όσον αφορά τις εξωτερικές υποθέσεις, η Ασία είναι μία από τις μεγαλύτερες και πολυπληθέστερες περιοχές στον κόσμο. Περιλαμβάνει το 60% του παγκόσμιου πληθυσμού. Συνεπώς, με εκπλήσσει το γεγονός ότι η Επιτροπή έχει περικόψει τη χρηματοδότηση. Τα περυσινά χρήματα για την καταστροφή του τσουνάμι αποσπάσθηκαν από άλλα ασιατικά προγράμματα χωρίς καμία αύξηση και φέτος, επειδή η χρηματοδότηση για το τσουνάμι έχει μειωθεί, η Επιτροπή περιέκοψε και πάλι τη χρηματοδότηση. Έχει ξεχάσει η Επιτροπή ότι τα ασιατικά προγράμματα που έχουν θυσιαστεί χρειάζονται απεγνωσμένα τα χρήματα, όπου η ΕΕ έχει δεσμευτεί να εκπληρώσει τους αναπτυξιακούς στόχους της Χιλιετίας; Ζητώ από την Επιτροπή να το δικαιολογήσει αυτό. Χαιρετίζω την έκκληση της παρούσας έκθεσης για διαφάνεια στην κατανομή της χρηματοδότησης για πληροφόρηση και επικοινωνία. Χρειαζόμαστε πλήρη διαφάνεια, ούτως ώστε τα χρήματα των ευρωπαίων φορολογούμενων που δαπανώνται σε ευρωπαϊκές πολιτικές να είναι απολύτως ανιχνεύσιμα και να δημοσιεύονται στο Διαδίκτυο. Τότε μπορούμε να δούμε ακριβώς πόσα χρήματα πηγαίνουν σε ποιον. Αυτό ισχύει εξίσου για τους βουλευτές του παρόντος Σώματος και ειδικά για τη γεωργία. Τέλος, θα ήθελα να συγχαρώ και τους δύο εισηγητές, τον κ. Elles και τον κ. Grech, για την εκπόνηση εξαιρετικών εκθέσεων. Τους ευχαριστώ για τη σκληρή δουλειά τους."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, quiero comentar tres cuestiones. En primer lugar, quiero dar las gracias al ponente por aumentar los créditos de pago para programas prioritarios relacionados con la Agenda de Lisboa, como el Programa de Competitividad e Innovación y el Séptimo Programa Marco de Investigación. Se trata de iniciativas cruciales que no solo dan trabajo a científicos valiosos y muy cualificados de Europa, sino que también preparan a la Unión Europea para afrontar futuros desafíos en el desempeño de su liderazgo mundial. No deberíamos pasar por alto el efecto significativo y positivo que tienen sobre nuestras regiones y sus poblaciones. En segundo lugar, recomiendo este informe por el interés que expresa respecto del Programa Galileo, que no estaba financiado suficientemente en el proyecto de presupuesto general de 2007. Este programa escaparate de la UE supone un importante desafío tecnológico, económico y político y tenemos que estar seguros al respecto. No entiendo por qué estamos dispuestos a recortar fondos en este terreno. Sería una pena para la Unión Europea que este proyecto fuera a atascarse o a fallar por la falta de respaldo financiero. En tercer lugar, como muchos ámbitos, como los que acabo de mencionar, requieren una financiación mayor, no entiendo por qué, cuando la Comisión ITRE solicita un presupuesto más reducido, esto no procede del programa de Seguridad e Investigación Espacial, donde deberíamos reducir pagos y no aumentarlos. Volviendo sobre cuestiones más generales ajenas a ITRE, con respecto a los Fondos Estructurales apoyo la petición de este informe de aumentar los pagos. Es en este ámbito donde los ciudadanos de a pie ven la diferencia que suponen las políticas de la UE en su vida cotidiana. Mi región, West Midlands, es un ejemplo de esto. Los fondos de la UE han servido de catalizador para reactivar el potencial y el desarrollo de las comunidades locales. En cuanto a los asuntos exteriores, Asia es una de las regiones más grandes y pobladas del mundo. Comprende el 60 % de la población mundial. Por ello me sorprende que la Comisión haya recortado fondos. El año pasado, el dinero para la catástrofe del tsunami se desvió de otros programas asiáticos sin que se hayan aumentado, y este año, debido a la reducción de la financiación del tsunami, la Comisión ha recortado de nuevo la financiación. ¿Ha olvidado la Comisión que los programas asiáticos que se sacrificaron necesitan desesperadamente el dinero y que con respecto a ellos la Unión Europea se comprometió para cumplir los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio? Pido a la Comisión que lo justifique. Celebro la petición de este informe de transparencia en la asignación de fondos para la información y la comunicación. Necesitamos transparencia en todos los frentes, de modo que se pueda seguir la traza del dinero de los contribuyentes de la Unión Europea gastado en políticas de la UE, que debe publicarse en Internet. Así podemos ver exactamente cuánto dinero va a manos de quién. Esto también se aplica a los diputados a esta Cámara y especialmente a la agricultura. Por último, quiero felicitar a ambos ponentes, el señor Elles y el señor Grech, por elaborar informes excelentes. Les agradezco su esfuerzo."@es²⁰ "Mr President, I should like to make three points. Firstly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for increasing payment appropriations for priority programmes linked to the Lisbon Agenda, like the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are key initiatives that not only provide work for Europe’s valuable and highly skilled scientists but also prepare the EU to face future challenges as a global leader. We should not overlook the significant and positive impact that they have on our regions and their populations. Secondly, I commend this report for the concern it expresses for the Galileo Programme, which has been under-funded in the 2007 draft general budget. This showcase EU programme is a major technological, economic and political challenge and we really need to be sure about it. I do not understand why we are prepared to cut funding in this area. It would be an embarrassment for the EU if this project were to stall or fail due to lack of financial backing. Thirdly, since many areas, such as the ones I have just mentioned, require increased funding, I do not understand why, when the ITRE Committee’s request is for a smaller budget, this does not come from the Security and Space Research programme, where we should reduce payments and not increase them. Turning to more general non-ITRE issues, on the structural funds I support the call in this report for an increase in payments. This is the one area where ordinary citizens see the difference EU policies make to their everyday lives. My own region, the West Midlands, is a case in point. EU funds have acted as a catalyst in re-energising the potential and development of local communities. On external affairs, Asia is one of the largest and most populous regions in the world. It contains 60% of the world’s population. So I am amazed that the Commission has cut funding. Last year money for the tsunami disaster was taken from other Asian programmes without any increase and this year, because the tsunami funding has decreased, the Commission has cut the funding again. Has the Commission forgotten that the money is desperately needed by the Asian programmes which were sacrificed, where the EU is committed to meeting Millennium Development Goals? I ask the Commission to justify this. I welcome this report’s call for transparency in the allocation of funding for information and communication. We need full transparency across the board, so EU taxpayers’ money spent on EU policies should be totally traceable and published on the Internet. Then we can see exactly how much money goes to whom. This applies equally to the Members of this House and especially to agriculture. Finally, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Elles and Mr Grech, on producing excellent reports. I thank them for their hard work."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, haluan ottaa esiin kolme asiaa. Ensimmäiseksi kiitän esittelijää siitä, että hän on lisännyt Lissabonin toimintaohjelmaan liittyvien ensisijaisten ohjelmien, kuten kilpailukykyä ja innovaatiota koskevan ohjelman ja tutkimuksen seitsemännen puiteohjelman, maksumäärärahoja. Ne ovat keskeisiä aloitteita, jotka tarjoavat työtä Euroopan kallisarvoisille ja erittäin päteville tutkijoille ja joiden avulla EU voi maailmanlaajuisesti johtavassa asemassa olevana toimijana valmistautua kohtaamaan tulevat haasteet. Emme saa jättää huomiotta sitä merkittävää ja myönteistä vaikutusta, joka näillä aloitteilla on alueisiimme ja niiden asukkaisiin. Toiseksi minusta on myönteistä, että mietinnössä kiinnitetään huomiota Galileo-ohjelmaan, jolle on myönnetty liian vähän määrärahoja esityksessä vuoden 2007 yleiseksi talousarvioksi. Tämä malliesimerkki EU:n ohjelmista on suuri tekninen, taloudellinen ja poliittinen haaste, ja tämän on todellakin oltava meille selvää. En ymmärrä, miksi haluamme leikata tämän alan määrärahoja. Olisi nolo tilanne EU:lle, jos tämä hanke viivästyisi tai epäonnistuisi riittämättömän rahoituksen vuoksi. Kolmanneksi, koska monilla, kuten äsken mainitsemillani, aloilla tarvitaan lisärahoitusta, en ymmärrä, miksei näitä varoja oteta avaruus- ja turvallisuustutkimusohjelmasta, kun teollisuus-, tutkimus- ja energiavaliokunta kerran vaatii pienempää talousarviota ja avaruus- ja turvallisuustutkimusohjelman maksuja olisi nimenomaan vähennettävä eikä lisättävä. Käsittelen seuraavaksi yleisempiä asioita, jotka eivät kuulu teollisuus-, tutkimus- ja energiavaliokunnan vastuualueeseen. Rakennerahastojen yhteydessä yhdyn mietinnössä esitettyyn vaatimukseen maksujen lisäämisestä. Tämä on yksi sellainen ala, jolla tavalliset kansalaiset huomaavat EU:n toimien vaikutuksen jokapäiväisessä elämässään. Oma kotiseutuni West Midlands voidaan mainita esimerkkinä tästä. EU:n varat ovat aktivoineet paikallisyhteisöjen potentiaalia ja vauhdittaneet niiden kehitystä. Ulkoasioista totean, että Aasia on maailman suurimpia ja runsasväkisimpiä alueita. Siellä asuu 60 prosenttia koko maailman väestöstä. Olen siksi hämmästynyt, että komissio on vähentänyt määrärahoja. Viime vuonna hyökyaaltokatastrofiin myönnettyjä varoja otettiin muista Aasiaa koskevista ohjelmista, mutta näiden ohjelmien määrärahoja ei lisätty tänä vuonna. Komissio on vähentänyt niitä entisestään, koska hyökyaaltokatastrofiin myönnetään nyt vähemmän varoja. Onko komissio unohtanut, että Aasiaa koskeviin ohjelmiin tarvitaan epätoivoisesti rahoitusta, sillä siitä jouduttiin tinkimään, koska EU on sitoutunut saavuttamaan vuosituhannen kehitystavoitteet? Pyydän komissiota perustelemaan tämän asian. Minusta on myönteistä, että mietinnössä vaaditaan avoimuutta tiedotukseen ja viestintään myönnettävien määrärahojen osoittamisessa. Kaikkien menettelyjen on oltava täysin avoimia, jotta voidaan selvittää, mihin EU:n toimiin käytetyt EU:n veronmaksajien rahat ovat päätyneet ja jotta nämä tiedot voidaan julkaista Internetissä. Tällöin tiedetään tarkasti, miten paljon varoja menee kellekin. Tämä pätee yhtä lailla Euroopan parlamentin jäseniin ja erityisesti maatalouteen. Lopuksi haluan onnitella molempia esittelijöitä, Ellesiä ja Grechiä, erinomaisten mietintöjen laadinnasta. Kiitän heitä ahkerasta työskentelystä."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, je voudrais faire trois remarques. Tout d’abord, je voudrais remercier le rapporteur d’avoir augmenté les crédits de paiement pour les programmes prioritaires liés à l’agenda de Lisbonne, comme le programme pour la compétitivité et l’innovation et le septième programme-cadre de recherche. Il s’agit d’initiatives essentielles qui donnent du travail aux scientifiques très utiles et hautement qualifiés d’Europe et, mais qui préparent aussi l’Union à relever les défis à venir en tant que leader mondial. Nous ne devrions pas négliger l’impact important et positif qu’elles ont sur nos régions et nos concitoyens. Ensuite, je salue ce rapport car il exprime des inquiétudes concernant le programme Galileo, qui a été sous-financé dans le projet de budget général 2007. Ce programme de prestige de l’Union représente un grand défi technologique, économique et politique, et nous devons réellement en être convaincus. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi nous sommes prêts à réduire le budget dans ce domaine. Si ce projet stagnait ou échouait à cause d’une aide financière insuffisante, ce serait gênant pour l’Union européenne. Enfin, étant donné que de nombreux domaines, comme ceux que je viens de mentionner, requièrent une augmentation de la dotation, je ne comprends pas pourquoi, alors que la commission ITRE demande un budget plus réduit, cette réduction ne vient pas du programme de sécurité et de recherche spatiale, où nous devrions réduire les paiements et non les augmenter. Pour aborder des questions plus générales ne dépendant pas de la commission ITRE, sur les Fonds structurels, je soutiens l’appel que lance ce rapport en faveur d’une augmentation des crédits de paiement. Il s’agit d’un domaine où les citoyens voient la différence que les politiques européennes apportent à leur vie quotidienne. Ma région, les West Midlands, est concernée. Les fonds européens ont servi de catalyseurs pour revitaliser le potentiel et le développement de communautés locales. Concernant la politique étrangère, l’Asie est l’une des régions les plus grandes et les plus peuplées du monde. Elle rassemble 60 % de la population mondiale. Je suis donc étonnée que la Commission ait réduit les crédits dans ce domaine. L’année dernière, les fonds de l’aide spéciale accordée au tsunami ont été tirés d’autres programmes asiatiques sans contrebalancer ce retrait par une augmentation et, cette année, l’aide spéciale accordée au tsunami ayant diminué, la Commission a de nouveau réduit ces fonds. La Commission a-t-elle oublié que l’argent est désespérément nécessaire pour les programmes asiatiques qui ont été sacrifiés, alors que l’Union s’est engagée à atteindre les objectifs du Millénaire pour le développement? Je demande à la Commission de le justifier. Je salue l’appel que lance le rapport à renforcer la transparence dans l’allocation de fonds à l’information et la communication. Nous avons besoin d’une totale transparence générale, de sorte que l’argent des contribuables européens dépensé dans les politiques européennes puisse être totalement suivi, le tout étant publié sur l’internet. Nous pourrons alors exactement savoir combien d’argent va à qui. Cela vaut également pour les députés de cette Assemblée, et en particulier concernant l’agriculture. Enfin, je voudrais féliciter les rapporteurs, MM. Elles et Grech, pour avoir rédigé d’excellents rapports. Je les remercie pour leur dur travail."@fr⁸ "Mr President, I should like to make three points. Firstly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for increasing payment appropriations for priority programmes linked to the Lisbon Agenda, like the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are key initiatives that not only provide work for Europe’s valuable and highly skilled scientists but also prepare the EU to face future challenges as a global leader. We should not overlook the significant and positive impact that they have on our regions and their populations. Secondly, I commend this report for the concern it expresses for the Galileo Programme, which has been under-funded in the 2007 draft general budget. This showcase EU programme is a major technological, economic and political challenge and we really need to be sure about it. I do not understand why we are prepared to cut funding in this area. It would be an embarrassment for the EU if this project were to stall or fail due to lack of financial backing. Thirdly, since many areas, such as the ones I have just mentioned, require increased funding, I do not understand why, when the ITRE Committee’s request is for a smaller budget, this does not come from the Security and Space Research programme, where we should reduce payments and not increase them. Turning to more general non-ITRE issues, on the structural funds I support the call in this report for an increase in payments. This is the one area where ordinary citizens see the difference EU policies make to their everyday lives. My own region, the West Midlands, is a case in point. EU funds have acted as a catalyst in re-energising the potential and development of local communities. On external affairs, Asia is one of the largest and most populous regions in the world. It contains 60% of the world’s population. So I am amazed that the Commission has cut funding. Last year money for the tsunami disaster was taken from other Asian programmes without any increase and this year, because the tsunami funding has decreased, the Commission has cut the funding again. Has the Commission forgotten that the money is desperately needed by the Asian programmes which were sacrificed, where the EU is committed to meeting Millennium Development Goals? I ask the Commission to justify this. I welcome this report’s call for transparency in the allocation of funding for information and communication. We need full transparency across the board, so EU taxpayers’ money spent on EU policies should be totally traceable and published on the Internet. Then we can see exactly how much money goes to whom. This applies equally to the Members of this House and especially to agriculture. Finally, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Elles and Mr Grech, on producing excellent reports. I thank them for their hard work."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, desidero formulare tre osservazioni. Innanzi tutto, desidero ringraziare il relatore per aver aumentato gli stanziamenti di pagamento per i programmi prioritari collegati all’agenda di Lisbona, come il programma per la competitività e l’innovazione e il settimo programma quadro di ricerca. Si tratta di iniziative chiave, che non soltanto offrono lavoro agli scienziati europei esperti e altamente qualificati, ma preparano altresì l’UE ad affrontare le future sfide come attore globale di primo piano. Non dovremmo trascurare gli effetti positivi e significativi che hanno sulle nostre regioni e sui loro abitanti. Secondo, desidero elogiare la relazione per la preoccupazione che esprime in merito al programma GALILEO, che ha ricevuto una dotazione inadeguata nel progetto di bilancio generale per il 2007. Questo programma è una vetrina per l’UE, un’enorme sfida tecnologica, economica e politica e dobbiamo davvero esserne certi. Non capisco perché si vogliano apportare tagli in questo ambito. Sarebbe imbarazzante per l’UE se questo progetto dovesse arenarsi o fallire a causa di un finanziamento insufficiente. Terzo, poiché molti settori, come quelli che ho appena citato, richiedono un aumento di fondi, non capisco perché quando la commissione ITRE chiede un bilancio inferiore, questo non venga dal programma di ricerca per la sicurezza e lo spazio, dove i pagamenti andrebbero ridotti e non incrementati. Per passare a questioni più generali che non riguardano la commissione ITRE, in merito ai Fondi strutturali sostengo la richiesta contenuta nella relazione di aumentare gli stanziamenti di pagamento. Si tratta di uno degli ambiti nei quali i normali cittadini vedono la differenza che le politiche dell’UE producono nella loro vita di ogni giorno. La mia regione, le è un caso paradigmatico: i fondi comunitari hanno agito da catalizzatore per ridare energie al potenziale e allo sviluppo delle comunità locali. In ordine alle relazioni esterne, l’Asia è una delle regioni più grandi e più popolose del mondo: in essa vive il 60 per cento della popolazione mondiale. Per tale motivo sono stupefatta che la Commissione abbia ridotto la copertura finanziaria. L’anno scorso i fondi per lo erano stati prelevati da altri programmi per l’Asia senza nessun incremento e quest’anno, poiché i finanziamenti per lo sono diminuiti, la Commissione ha nuovamente ridotto i fondi. La Commissione ha dimenticato che i programmi per l’Asia, che sono stati sacrificati, hanno disperatamente bisogno di fondi, considerato che l’UE ha assunto l’impegno di realizzare gli Obiettivi di sviluppo del Millennio? Chiedo alla Commissione di fornirci giustificazioni. Apprezzo la richiesta di trasparenza nell’attribuzione dei fondi per l’informazione e la comunicazione contenuta nella relazione. E’ necessaria una trasparenza a 360 gradi per consentire la totale tracciabilità e la pubblicazione su del denaro dei contribuenti europei speso per le politiche dell’UE. In questo modo si potrà vedere esattamente a chi e in quale misura vengono destinati i fondi. Lo stesso vale per i membri di questo Parlamento e specialmente per l’agricoltura. Infine, desidero congratularmi con i due relatori, onorevoli Elles e Grech, per le loro eccellenti relazioni e li ringrazio per il loro grande impegno."@it^12,12 "Mr President, I should like to make three points. Firstly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for increasing payment appropriations for priority programmes linked to the Lisbon Agenda, like the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are key initiatives that not only provide work for Europe’s valuable and highly skilled scientists but also prepare the EU to face future challenges as a global leader. We should not overlook the significant and positive impact that they have on our regions and their populations. Secondly, I commend this report for the concern it expresses for the Galileo Programme, which has been under-funded in the 2007 draft general budget. This showcase EU programme is a major technological, economic and political challenge and we really need to be sure about it. I do not understand why we are prepared to cut funding in this area. It would be an embarrassment for the EU if this project were to stall or fail due to lack of financial backing. Thirdly, since many areas, such as the ones I have just mentioned, require increased funding, I do not understand why, when the ITRE Committee’s request is for a smaller budget, this does not come from the Security and Space Research programme, where we should reduce payments and not increase them. Turning to more general non-ITRE issues, on the structural funds I support the call in this report for an increase in payments. This is the one area where ordinary citizens see the difference EU policies make to their everyday lives. My own region, the West Midlands, is a case in point. EU funds have acted as a catalyst in re-energising the potential and development of local communities. On external affairs, Asia is one of the largest and most populous regions in the world. It contains 60% of the world’s population. So I am amazed that the Commission has cut funding. Last year money for the tsunami disaster was taken from other Asian programmes without any increase and this year, because the tsunami funding has decreased, the Commission has cut the funding again. Has the Commission forgotten that the money is desperately needed by the Asian programmes which were sacrificed, where the EU is committed to meeting Millennium Development Goals? I ask the Commission to justify this. I welcome this report’s call for transparency in the allocation of funding for information and communication. We need full transparency across the board, so EU taxpayers’ money spent on EU policies should be totally traceable and published on the Internet. Then we can see exactly how much money goes to whom. This applies equally to the Members of this House and especially to agriculture. Finally, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Elles and Mr Grech, on producing excellent reports. I thank them for their hard work."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, I should like to make three points. Firstly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for increasing payment appropriations for priority programmes linked to the Lisbon Agenda, like the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are key initiatives that not only provide work for Europe’s valuable and highly skilled scientists but also prepare the EU to face future challenges as a global leader. We should not overlook the significant and positive impact that they have on our regions and their populations. Secondly, I commend this report for the concern it expresses for the Galileo Programme, which has been under-funded in the 2007 draft general budget. This showcase EU programme is a major technological, economic and political challenge and we really need to be sure about it. I do not understand why we are prepared to cut funding in this area. It would be an embarrassment for the EU if this project were to stall or fail due to lack of financial backing. Thirdly, since many areas, such as the ones I have just mentioned, require increased funding, I do not understand why, when the ITRE Committee’s request is for a smaller budget, this does not come from the Security and Space Research programme, where we should reduce payments and not increase them. Turning to more general non-ITRE issues, on the structural funds I support the call in this report for an increase in payments. This is the one area where ordinary citizens see the difference EU policies make to their everyday lives. My own region, the West Midlands, is a case in point. EU funds have acted as a catalyst in re-energising the potential and development of local communities. On external affairs, Asia is one of the largest and most populous regions in the world. It contains 60% of the world’s population. So I am amazed that the Commission has cut funding. Last year money for the tsunami disaster was taken from other Asian programmes without any increase and this year, because the tsunami funding has decreased, the Commission has cut the funding again. Has the Commission forgotten that the money is desperately needed by the Asian programmes which were sacrificed, where the EU is committed to meeting Millennium Development Goals? I ask the Commission to justify this. I welcome this report’s call for transparency in the allocation of funding for information and communication. We need full transparency across the board, so EU taxpayers’ money spent on EU policies should be totally traceable and published on the Internet. Then we can see exactly how much money goes to whom. This applies equally to the Members of this House and especially to agriculture. Finally, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Elles and Mr Grech, on producing excellent reports. I thank them for their hard work."@lv¹³ "Mr President, I should like to make three points. Firstly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for increasing payment appropriations for priority programmes linked to the Lisbon Agenda, like the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are key initiatives that not only provide work for Europe’s valuable and highly skilled scientists but also prepare the EU to face future challenges as a global leader. We should not overlook the significant and positive impact that they have on our regions and their populations. Secondly, I commend this report for the concern it expresses for the Galileo Programme, which has been under-funded in the 2007 draft general budget. This showcase EU programme is a major technological, economic and political challenge and we really need to be sure about it. I do not understand why we are prepared to cut funding in this area. It would be an embarrassment for the EU if this project were to stall or fail due to lack of financial backing. Thirdly, since many areas, such as the ones I have just mentioned, require increased funding, I do not understand why, when the ITRE Committee’s request is for a smaller budget, this does not come from the Security and Space Research programme, where we should reduce payments and not increase them. Turning to more general non-ITRE issues, on the structural funds I support the call in this report for an increase in payments. This is the one area where ordinary citizens see the difference EU policies make to their everyday lives. My own region, the West Midlands, is a case in point. EU funds have acted as a catalyst in re-energising the potential and development of local communities. On external affairs, Asia is one of the largest and most populous regions in the world. It contains 60% of the world’s population. So I am amazed that the Commission has cut funding. Last year money for the tsunami disaster was taken from other Asian programmes without any increase and this year, because the tsunami funding has decreased, the Commission has cut the funding again. Has the Commission forgotten that the money is desperately needed by the Asian programmes which were sacrificed, where the EU is committed to meeting Millennium Development Goals? I ask the Commission to justify this. I welcome this report’s call for transparency in the allocation of funding for information and communication. We need full transparency across the board, so EU taxpayers’ money spent on EU policies should be totally traceable and published on the Internet. Then we can see exactly how much money goes to whom. This applies equally to the Members of this House and especially to agriculture. Finally, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Elles and Mr Grech, on producing excellent reports. I thank them for their hard work."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil graag drie opmerkingen maken. In de eerste plaats wil ik de rapporteur bedanken voor de verhoging van de betalingskredieten ten behoeve van prioritaire programma’s die verband houden met de Lissabon-agenda, zoals het programma voor innovatie en onderzoek en het zevende kaderprogramma voor onderzoek. Dit zijn namelijk belangrijke initiatieven, die niet alleen werk bieden aan waardevolle en zeer deskundige Europese wetenschappers, maar die de EU ook voorbereiden op de uitdagingen waarmee zij als een van de mondiale leiders geconfronteerd zal worden. Wij mogen de significante en positieve effecten van deze programma’s voor onze regio’s en burgers niet over het hoofd zien. In de tweede plaats wil ik het verslag graag aanbevelen vanwege de extra aandacht die uitgaat naar het Galileo-programma. Daarvoor zijn in het ontwerp van de algemene begroting 2007 namelijk te weinig financiële middelen uitgetrokken. Dit communautaire modelprogramma brengt een grote technologische, economische en politieke uitdaging met zich mee en wij moeten hierbij vastberaden te werk gaan. Het is voor mij onbegrijpelijk als wij hierop zouden bezuinigen. Het zou de EU zwaar in verlegenheid brengen als dit project door een gebrek aan financiële steun vertraagd wordt of zelfs mislukt. In de derde plaats wil ik erop wijzen dat er op veel gebieden extra middelen nodig zijn, zoals op het gebied waar ik zojuist aan refereerde. Ik begrijp dan ook niet dat, als de Commissie industrie, onderzoek en energie een verzoek voor een kleiner budget indient, er niet bezuinigd wordt op het programma voor veiligheid en ruimteonderzoek. Op dit punt zouden de betalingskredieten juist verlaagd en niet verhoogd moeten worden. Dan de meer algemene kwesties die niet specifiek tot het terrein van onze commissie behoren. Wat de structuurfondsen betreft, steun ik het voorstel in het verslag om de betalingskredieten te verhogen. Dankzij die structuurfondsen kunnen de gewone burgers namelijk in de praktijk ervaren welke voordelen het beleid van de EU oplevert in hun dagelijks leven. Een goed voorbeeld hiervan is mijn eigen regio, de West Midlands. Hier hebben de EU-fondsen als een katalysator gefungeerd voor het creëren van nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de lokale gemeenschappen en voor het revitaliseren van hun ontwikkeling. Bij de externe betrekkingen moeten wij er rekening mee houden dat Azië een van de grootste en dichtstbevolkte gebieden ter wereld is. Dit continent herbergt 60 procent van de wereldbevolking. Ik ben dan ook verbaasd dat de Commissie hierop heeft bezuinigd. Vorig jaar is geld voor de tsunami-ramp weggehaald bij andere Aziatische programma’s zonder dat daar een verhoging tegenover staat. Nu de steun vanwege de tsunami is gereduceerd, heeft de Commissie dit jaar weer een bezuiniging doorgevoerd. Is de Commissie vergeten dat de Aziatische programma’s die het slachtoffer van die bezuinigingen zijn, dit geld hard nodig hebben, zeker ook als de EU serieus van plan is om de millenniumontwikkelingsdoelstellingen te verwezenlijken? Ik zou graag van de Commissie willen weten wat hier de reden van is. Ik verwelkom de oproep in dit verslag voor transparantie bij de toewijzing van fondsen voor informatie en communicatie. Wij hebben op elk vlak volledige transparantie nodig zodat het belastinggeld van de Europese burgers dat aan EU-beleid wordt uitgegeven, volledig traceerbaar is. De betreffende gegevens dienen ook op internet te worden gepubliceerd. Op die manier is precies na te gaan hoeveel geld naar wie gaat. Dit principe geldt trouwens net zo goed voor de werkzaamheden van de afgevaardigden van dit Parlement, en met name op landbouwgebied. Tot slot wil ik de beide rapporteurs, de heer Elles en de heer Grech, feliciteren met de uitstekende verslagen die zij hebben opgesteld. Ik dank hen voor het vele werk dat zij hebben verricht."@nl³ "Mr President, I should like to make three points. Firstly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for increasing payment appropriations for priority programmes linked to the Lisbon Agenda, like the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are key initiatives that not only provide work for Europe’s valuable and highly skilled scientists but also prepare the EU to face future challenges as a global leader. We should not overlook the significant and positive impact that they have on our regions and their populations. Secondly, I commend this report for the concern it expresses for the Galileo Programme, which has been under-funded in the 2007 draft general budget. This showcase EU programme is a major technological, economic and political challenge and we really need to be sure about it. I do not understand why we are prepared to cut funding in this area. It would be an embarrassment for the EU if this project were to stall or fail due to lack of financial backing. Thirdly, since many areas, such as the ones I have just mentioned, require increased funding, I do not understand why, when the ITRE Committee’s request is for a smaller budget, this does not come from the Security and Space Research programme, where we should reduce payments and not increase them. Turning to more general non-ITRE issues, on the structural funds I support the call in this report for an increase in payments. This is the one area where ordinary citizens see the difference EU policies make to their everyday lives. My own region, the West Midlands, is a case in point. EU funds have acted as a catalyst in re-energising the potential and development of local communities. On external affairs, Asia is one of the largest and most populous regions in the world. It contains 60% of the world’s population. So I am amazed that the Commission has cut funding. Last year money for the tsunami disaster was taken from other Asian programmes without any increase and this year, because the tsunami funding has decreased, the Commission has cut the funding again. Has the Commission forgotten that the money is desperately needed by the Asian programmes which were sacrificed, where the EU is committed to meeting Millennium Development Goals? I ask the Commission to justify this. I welcome this report’s call for transparency in the allocation of funding for information and communication. We need full transparency across the board, so EU taxpayers’ money spent on EU policies should be totally traceable and published on the Internet. Then we can see exactly how much money goes to whom. This applies equally to the Members of this House and especially to agriculture. Finally, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Elles and Mr Grech, on producing excellent reports. I thank them for their hard work."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, gostaria de referir três questões. Em primeiro lugar, quero agradecer ao relator por aumentar as dotações de pagamento para programas prioritários associados à Agenda de Lisboa, como o Programa-Quadro para a Competitividade e a Inovação e o Sétimo Programa-Quadro de actividades de investigação. Estas são iniciativas fundamentais, que não só providenciam trabalho para os cientistas de valor e altamente qualificados da Europa como também preparam a UE para enfrentar futuros desafios como líder mundial. Não devemos menosprezar o grande e positivo impacto que têm nas nossas regiões e respectivas populações. Em segundo lugar, admiro este relatório pela preocupação que expressa relativamente ao Programa Galileu, que foi sub-financiado no projecto de orçamento geral para 2007. Este programa emblemático da UE constitui um desafio tecnológico, económico e político, pelo que precisamos efectivamente de ter certezas acerca do mesmo. Não compreendo como estamos dispostos a reduzir qualquer financiamento nesta área. Seria uma situação embaraçosa para a UE se este projecto se atrasasse ou se fosse votado ao fracasso por falta de apoio financeiro. Em terceiro lugar, uma vez que muitas áreas, como aquelas que acabei de mencionar, precisam de um financiamento acrescido, não compreendo por que razão, quando o pedido da Comissão da Indústria, do Comércio Externo, da Investigação e da Energia é no sentido de um orçamento mais pequeno, isto não começa com o Programa Segurança e Investigação Espacial, em que devemos reduzir pagamentos e não aumentá-los. Voltando-me para questões mais gerais e não relacionadas com a Comissão da Indústria, da Investigação e da Energia, devo dizer que, em relação aos Fundos Estruturais, apoio o pedido deste relatório no sentido de um aumento nos pagamentos. Esta é uma área em que o cidadão comum vê a diferença que as políticas da UE fazem na sua vida do dia a dia. A minha própria região (parte ocidental da região central Inglaterra), é um exemplo disso mesmo. Os fundos da UE actuaram como um catalizador na reenergização do potencial e desenvolvimento das comunidades locais. No que toca aos assuntos externos, a Ásia é uma das regiões mais populosas e maiores do mundo. 60% da população mundial vive neste continente. Fico pois estupefacta ao ver a Comissão reduzir o financiamento. No ano passado, as verbas para a catástrofe do tsunami foram retiradas de outros programas relacionados com a Ásia sem que tenha havido qualquer aumento, e, este ano, dado que os fundos associados ao tsunami diminuíram, a Comissão reduziu novamente o financiamento. Terá a Comissão esquecido que os programas asiáticos que foram sacrificados precisam desesperadamente do dinheiro, e que a UE se comprometeu a cumprir os Objectivos de Desenvolvimento do Milénio? Gostaria que a Comissão apresentasse uma justificação para esta sua posição. Saúdo o apelo do presente relatório à transparência na afectação de fundos destinados à informação e comunicação. Precisamos de toda a transparência, de modo a que o dinheiro dos contribuintes da UE despendido nas políticas da UE possam ser totalmente rastreados e publicados na Internet. Assim, poderemos saber exactamente para quem vai o dinheiro e os respectivos montantes. Isto aplica-se igualmente aos deputados desta Câmara e, em especial, ao domínio agricultura. Por último, gostaria de felicitar ambos os relatores, os senhores deputados Elles e Grech, por elaborarem excelentes relatórios. Muito obrigada pelo seu grande empenho."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, I should like to make three points. Firstly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for increasing payment appropriations for priority programmes linked to the Lisbon Agenda, like the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are key initiatives that not only provide work for Europe’s valuable and highly skilled scientists but also prepare the EU to face future challenges as a global leader. We should not overlook the significant and positive impact that they have on our regions and their populations. Secondly, I commend this report for the concern it expresses for the Galileo Programme, which has been under-funded in the 2007 draft general budget. This showcase EU programme is a major technological, economic and political challenge and we really need to be sure about it. I do not understand why we are prepared to cut funding in this area. It would be an embarrassment for the EU if this project were to stall or fail due to lack of financial backing. Thirdly, since many areas, such as the ones I have just mentioned, require increased funding, I do not understand why, when the ITRE Committee’s request is for a smaller budget, this does not come from the Security and Space Research programme, where we should reduce payments and not increase them. Turning to more general non-ITRE issues, on the structural funds I support the call in this report for an increase in payments. This is the one area where ordinary citizens see the difference EU policies make to their everyday lives. My own region, the West Midlands, is a case in point. EU funds have acted as a catalyst in re-energising the potential and development of local communities. On external affairs, Asia is one of the largest and most populous regions in the world. It contains 60% of the world’s population. So I am amazed that the Commission has cut funding. Last year money for the tsunami disaster was taken from other Asian programmes without any increase and this year, because the tsunami funding has decreased, the Commission has cut the funding again. Has the Commission forgotten that the money is desperately needed by the Asian programmes which were sacrificed, where the EU is committed to meeting Millennium Development Goals? I ask the Commission to justify this. I welcome this report’s call for transparency in the allocation of funding for information and communication. We need full transparency across the board, so EU taxpayers’ money spent on EU policies should be totally traceable and published on the Internet. Then we can see exactly how much money goes to whom. This applies equally to the Members of this House and especially to agriculture. Finally, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Elles and Mr Grech, on producing excellent reports. I thank them for their hard work."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, I should like to make three points. Firstly, I should like to thank the rapporteur for increasing payment appropriations for priority programmes linked to the Lisbon Agenda, like the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are key initiatives that not only provide work for Europe’s valuable and highly skilled scientists but also prepare the EU to face future challenges as a global leader. We should not overlook the significant and positive impact that they have on our regions and their populations. Secondly, I commend this report for the concern it expresses for the Galileo Programme, which has been under-funded in the 2007 draft general budget. This showcase EU programme is a major technological, economic and political challenge and we really need to be sure about it. I do not understand why we are prepared to cut funding in this area. It would be an embarrassment for the EU if this project were to stall or fail due to lack of financial backing. Thirdly, since many areas, such as the ones I have just mentioned, require increased funding, I do not understand why, when the ITRE Committee’s request is for a smaller budget, this does not come from the Security and Space Research programme, where we should reduce payments and not increase them. Turning to more general non-ITRE issues, on the structural funds I support the call in this report for an increase in payments. This is the one area where ordinary citizens see the difference EU policies make to their everyday lives. My own region, the West Midlands, is a case in point. EU funds have acted as a catalyst in re-energising the potential and development of local communities. On external affairs, Asia is one of the largest and most populous regions in the world. It contains 60% of the world’s population. So I am amazed that the Commission has cut funding. Last year money for the tsunami disaster was taken from other Asian programmes without any increase and this year, because the tsunami funding has decreased, the Commission has cut the funding again. Has the Commission forgotten that the money is desperately needed by the Asian programmes which were sacrificed, where the EU is committed to meeting Millennium Development Goals? I ask the Commission to justify this. I welcome this report’s call for transparency in the allocation of funding for information and communication. We need full transparency across the board, so EU taxpayers’ money spent on EU policies should be totally traceable and published on the Internet. Then we can see exactly how much money goes to whom. This applies equally to the Members of this House and especially to agriculture. Finally, I should like to congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Elles and Mr Grech, on producing excellent reports. I thank them for their hard work."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Jag skulle vilja påtala tre saker. För det första vill jag tacka föredraganden för ökningen av utgifter för utbetalningar för prioriterade program som är knutna till Lissabonmålen, såsom konkurrens- och innovationsprogrammet samt sjunde ramprogrammet för forskning. Dessa är nyckelinitiativ som inte bara ger arbete åt Europas värdefulla och skickliga vetenskapsmän utan också förbereder EU för att möta framtida utmaningar som global ledare. Vi får inte förbise den betydande och positiva påverkan som de har på våra regioner och deras invånare. För det andra vill jag berömma det engagemang som uttrycks i betänkandet för Galileoprogrammet, som har underfinansierats i förslaget till allmän budget för budgetåret 2007. Detta PR-nummer till EU-program är en stor teknisk, ekonomisk och politisk utmaning, och vi måste verkligen bli säkra på det. Jag förstår inte varför vi är beredda att skära ned på finansieringen på detta område. Det skulle vara en skam för EU om detta projekt skulle köra fast eller misslyckas på grund av bristande finansiellt stöd. För det tredje begriper jag inte, eftersom många områden, liksom de jag just nämnt, kräver ökad finansiering, varför detta inte kommer från programmet för säkerhet och rymdforskning, där betalningarna borde minskas och inte ökas, med tanke på att utskottet för industrifrågor, utrikeshandel, forskning och energi kräver en mindre budget. För att övergå till mer allmänna frågor som inte har med industriutskottet att göra, stöder jag kravet i detta betänkande på en ökning av betalningarna för strukturfonderna. Detta är det område där vanliga medborgare ser den skillnad som EU:s politik gör i deras vardag. Min egen region, West Midlands, är ett bra exempel på detta. Gemenskapsmedel har fungerat som en katalysator för en ny stimulans av lokala samhällens potential och utveckling. Vad gäller yttre förbindelser är Asien en av de största och folkrikaste regionerna i världen. Där bor 60 procent av världens befolkning. Därför förvånar det mig mycket att kommissionen har skurit ned på medlen. Förra året togs pengar från andra Asienprogram till tsunamikatastrofen utan att det sköts till några pengar till programmen, och det här året har kommissionen skurit ned på budgeten igen, eftersom finansieringen av stödet till tsunamins offer har minskat. Har kommissionen glömt att det finns ett desperat behov av medel inom de Asienprogram där dessa pengar togs, om EU ska kunna uppfylla millennieutvecklingsmålen? Jag ber kommissionen att motivera detta. Jag välkomnar kravet i detta betänkande på insyn i tilldelning av medel för information och kommunikation. Det behövs full insyn på alla områden, så att de pengar från EU:s skattebetalare som läggs på EU-politik blir fullständigt spårbara och offentliggörs på Internet. Då kan vi se precis hur mycket pengar som går vart. Detta gäller i lika hög grad för parlamentets ledamöter, och i synnerhet för jordbruk. Avslutningsvis vill jag gratulera båda föredragandena, James Elles och Louis Grech, till att ha framställt utmärkta betänkanden. Jag tackar dem för deras hårda arbete."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Internet"¹² "Neena Gill (PSE ),"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4} "West Midlands"^17,12 "draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4} "tsunami"¹²