Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.3.2-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mrs Buitenweg and Mr Costa Neves, for the remarkable job they have done in getting these guidelines together in such a short space of time. They are relative newcomers to our committee and they have shown their grasp of what our committee is about. With this type of guideline we will not go far wrong as we go through this year.
I wish to comment on several items. First, Mr Costa Neves' report and the Commission's budget. The big problem that we have had in the last two years has been with Category 4, especially the Balkans, trying to get the correct amount of money, having arguments with the Council, using the flexibility instrument and all in all not having a satisfactory procedure. Hopefully those problems will be solved and we should not be in that situation for next year. Having said that, we still await the World Bank report on the needs of Serbia. But when the ad hoc delegation went to Serbia earlier this year, and we were discussing this with the World Bank, they made the point that they would be looking at the supply side to see what the needs of Serbia were. To my understanding this meant that we will see what the donors can give before we decide what the needs are. Even with that type of statement, we will not be in the same situation on trying to find the funds for Category 4 for next year.
We will see problems arising in the future with Category 5. The present SAB 2 for 2001, as Markus Ferber mentioned earlier, is causing some people concern, not just about the needs of the Council in that SAB but also about what it is going to do to the margin of Category 5. When we had the trialogue last Thursday, the Swedish Presidency took on board, and were very amenable to, what we were saying. We stressed that there is a need for the three institutions to get together as soon as possible to start talking about the margins – especially in Category 5, but we have to start looking at Categories 3 and 4 as well.
On Category 1, the BSE crisis and now foot-and-mouth are raging, if that is the right word. Foot-and-mouth is certainly raging in the Member State I come from and in the region that I represent. The Council and Commission have made it quite clear that there will be no new money next year in Category 1. Whatever the consequences of these two diseases, the money will have to be found from within Category 1. Members need to be made aware of that before they start expecting new monies to be made available by the Council.
The fourth point on the Costa Neves report is the Commission reforms referred to in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9. These are essential. I would ask the Council to give some indication as to what they will be proposing for a legal base for the early retirement scheme. Until we know that we cannot really make our mind up as to what we should be supporting for next year.
On the Buitenweg report, can I comment on the fact that enlargement is a problem. The Interinstitutional Agreement states that any needs for enlargement will be met through a revision of the financial perspective. What then do we do when we want to plan for language training, new recruitment or adaptation of buildings? This is what Mr Elles was touching on and I am trying to be more subtle by saying that what we need to be doing is looking now at what the needs of enlargement are, and once again talking with the other institutions to look at a revision for enlargement. We need to resolve this between the three institutions. It is something that will not go away and as each week passes it approaches quicker and quicker.
The Colom i Naval report seems to have caused a lot of problems recently but hopefully we will have a solution in the very near future and those in the Member States who have been ringing around and those in the Commission who have been – dare I say – panicking can put their minds at rest.
Finally there is the Haug report which no one else has mentioned but I need to mention it. If I were not the chairman of the Budgets Committee but just a simple member, I would say that I have doubts with Mrs Haug's report and I would not vote for amendment 3. But, of course, I am the chairman and I cannot say those things, so I won't."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples