Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-180"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.7.2-180"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I welcome Mr Haarder and it is good to see him again in his new role. He knows he is always welcome in this House. Please send our regards to Mr Pedersen; it was good working with him.
I do not want to go into detail on many of the issues because I will leave that to both rapporteurs, who have mentioned several items. I would like to concentrate on one or two specific political issues. One concerns the agreement that was reached at conciliation on Category 5. Whilst it left the Council very happy, we in Parliament realised that we had probably made an enemy of the Commission by agreeing to that deal. But let me reiterate why we did so. We were convinced that in no way, shape or form would the Council ever agree to the flexibility instrument being used for Category 5. Therefore we agreed to a deal that would bring benefits for Parliament and the other institutions and a sensible approach to Category 5, not as the Commission wanted.
The things we have proposed about frontloading, the use of
and so on are there to ease the pain of the Commission. We know the Commission is going to suffer but we are trying to ease the situation slightly. If there are problems with enlargement because of what has occurred, then the Commission needs to convince the Council, not us, of its needs regarding staffing levels, because some of us are actually convinced.
Having said that, we cannot be criticised for the help we have given the Commission in its staffing needs over the last two years. Against the wishes of the Council, we have helped the Commission to increase its establishment plans by several hundred members of staff. So any criticism can only apply to next year. Please bear in mind that we have stood side by side with the Commission. This is an attempt to make the reform a success and to ensure that the Commission has the right people to do the jobs that we expect it to do. I say that because the deal was quite unique. However, Mr Stenmarck and Mr Färm on our committee now have to determine what will constitute the global
for this year. That is the task of both our rapporteurs, certainly Mr Stenmarck, who will look at the other institutions to see what money there is left over in their budgets to be put into the pot to ensure that the Commission is not disadvantaged to any great extent. We are aware that what we can find this year will be acceptable, but this leaves the problem of staffing next year, so whatever we can save for next year's budget we will.
My other political point concerns the common foreign and security policy. The President-in-Office mentioned it in his speech. Let us be clear on our position. We did not make an agreement on what the amounts are for the CFSP. The amount in this year's budget was EUR 30 million; the amount in the PDB was EUR 40 million and the amount entered in the Council's first reading is EUR 47.5 million. We made no agreements on that and, as far as we are concerned, we stick by Article 39 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. That figure as it stands right now should be EUR 30 million. That is not to say that, come our second reading, the figure may well be EUR 47.5 million but, for the sake of this debate and to clarify issues, our argument is that the Council put the wrong figure in: it should be EUR 30 million. There may be a legal interpretation as to when that disagreement was confirmed but, as far as we are concerned, it was confirmed at the conciliation meeting.
Let us not forget that there are problems in other categories also. In Category 2, the EUR 27 million entered for the restructuring of the fleet is not going to appear by magic. We must be serious when we say we must find a way of solving that. It would seem that the only way we can do so is by using the flexibility instrument. The Council may have to have a rethink on that unless it comes forward with a better idea which we have not yet thought of.
That is all I want to say on the political aspects. I will leave the rest to the rapporteurs."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples