Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-20-Speech-4-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031120.1.4-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to respond briefly to this joint debate in order, firstly to thank Members, rapporteurs and other participants in the discussions this morning and also to express appreciation for all the work that has been put into the issues covered by this joint debate. Secondly, I would like to clarify the Commission's position on a number of points relating to the three reports and, thirdly, to respond to a number of points that have been raised.
The question of earmarking, mentioned by a number of Members this morning, was discussed at last week's trialogue. The Council proposed that the beneficiaries should be named in a list annexed to each programme for 2004.
From 2005 the call for public proposals open to all organisations will be launched. The Commission has decided to align itself with that proposal as a realistic compromise. It must be seen in the context of the overall effort to find solutions for all seven proposals.
The Commission has compromised on the duration of programmes, where we proposed to limit them, until the end of 2006.
On the report by Mr Sacrédeus, I sympathise very strongly with the emphasis he put on dialogue between cultures and civilisations as a contribution to peace and understanding. I am reminded of Abba Eban's response when asked why he was continually seeking to open conversation with enemies. He explained that it was because his friends already agreed with him. That is a valid maxim for the conduct of international affairs. I am sure Mr Sacrédeus agrees. Indeed, it is not a bad definition of the relationship that is sometimes desirable between Parliament and the Commission.
I would also like to add, in response to Mr Sacrédeus, that I understand that four additional amendments have been tabled which were not supported or proposed by the rapporteur. If adopted, those amendments, numbers 16, 17, 18 and 19, would radically alter the Commission's proposal and the effect would be to open the possibility of awarding grants without a call for proposals, thereby undermining the principles of transparency and equal treatment, not to mention the principles of order in Parliament, which is always desirable - though I understand it is difficult when people are coming in.
Specifically in response to Mrs Dührkop Dührkop's comments about the publication of the call for tenders yesterday in the Official Journal, I have to inform her that the Commission had to do this to comply with the deadlines established by the financial regulation, which requires applications for operating grants to be submitted by 31 December. I know she has a forceful point relating to the legal standing of this action. If she does not have time to participate in the present debate, I hope she will be able to take the matter up with the relevant Commission authorities to get a clear explanation.
In relation to the report by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, I must add that, in order to be consistent, the Commission must also reject the later amendments: 21, 23, 25, 27, 31 and 32.
In relation to the Rühle report, I am afraid that a gremlin crept into the list we received and I have to say that the Commission also rejects Amendment 18. More importantly, I should reply to Mrs Rühle that the reason for the Commission's rejection of Amendments 35, 36 and 37 is that they would jeopardise the speedy adoption of the proposal because of the requirement for unanimity in the Council. I know she agrees with the Commission that delay is to be avoided wherever possible.
Moreover, there would inevitably be a long discussion on the potential beneficiaries to be included in the list. Given that the proposal is of an essentially technical nature, the Commission must guarantee the continuity of funding for existing activities, which clearly lack a legal basis. Any widening of the scope of this proposal is likely to jeopardise that objective, which I know is shared by Mrs Rühle.
The Commission understands, however, the rationale behind the amendment and could take account of Amendment 35 when developing a proposal for the possible extension of this programme. I know that Mrs Rühle will take the opportunity that that affords.
To Mrs Prets, who, together with many other speakers in the debate, made a very valuable contribution, I would say that it has been agreed with the Council that we could add a clause in the legal basis to allow retroactivity in financing operational grants for beneficiaries from January 2004 onwards."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples