Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-09-Speech-3-127"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021009.9.3-127"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many thanks and, on behalf of my group, I would like to thank Mr Berend, who has speedily drawn up this excellent report in exceptional circumstances. We must certainly all agree that we need a flexible tool that allows for quick action to repair damage caused by major disasters. Establishing the Solidarity Fund is such an important issue, however, that more time should have been set aside to discuss it. During the Committee debate and afterwards many factors came up which we have had insufficient time to consider properly.
Our group is in favour of establishing the fund. The threshold for the use of the aid must be kept high. The fund must concentrate on immediate costs during the initial stage of major natural disasters. Actual reconstruction does not form part of the fund’s remit. Risk factors must be addressed through insurance and preventive measures whenever possible.
It is also important that the fund should not become a new variation on the Structural Funds, to be used up on a yearly basis. It must only be used when there has been an exceptional, major disaster, when help is really needed.
One or two questions came up after the committee debate. I would like to ask the Commissioner what the position will be on major disasters taking place in third countries and resulting in suffering for people in the Member States and the applicant countries. Secondly, what will the maximum amount of aid be as a percentage of the costs of damage?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples