Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040210.2.2-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, this interesting debate highlights the urgency and importance of this proposal. The political pressure to have the centre set up and running as soon as possible reflects the needs and concerns of European citizens.
I conclude by thanking the rapporteur and Parliament. When I formulated this idea in my mind some years ago, I not only got the support that I would expect from my own services, but also very strong support from Parliament. We should be proud of ourselves today. By voting tomorrow on this issue we are reacting in a timely way in circumstances where we see communicable diseases on a global basis. We have discussed it in the last debate here in Parliament. We can proudly say to our citizens that we are responding well and quickly to their needs in relation to issues associated with communicable disease.
Sometimes we can be unduly pessimistic and critical of ourselves. This is one occasion where we can stand up and say that we have done our work well and quickly, we have responded to the needs, and we can look our citizens in the eye and tell them that we have done our work well.
For the Europe of today, where millions of people cross national borders every day, we need to be in a position to take rapid, coordinated action at EU level to best protect the health of our citizens. This is precisely what the centre aims to achieve. By pooling our scientific expertise and reinforcing our rapid alert systems, the ECDC will allow better preparation and swifter and more effective responses to disease outbreaks.
In summing up this morning's debate, I would like to focus on three central issues in the proposal which have been key areas of concern: the mission and the tasks of the centre; the possible extension of its sphere of operation; and the composition of the management board. There is broad agreement between the institutions on the initial scope of the centre. We all agree that it should start with communicable diseases and be able to respond to cases of unexpected outbreaks of unknown origin. The Council and Parliament share the view that there needs to be an external evaluation to assess the feasibility of extending the scope based on the performance and impact of the centre, as resources permit.
Clearly, the budget for the centre will dictate its expansion, and beyond 2006 this has to be decided within the new financial perspectives. To enable the centre to start, and for it to make an impact, the Commission is prepared to accept this approach, but it means that when the question of the need to extend its remit arises we should – and would – expect Parliament and the Council to address such a proposal rapidly, under the codecision procedure.
As regards the organisational aspects of the centre, the proposal provides for responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the centre to be granted to the director. The advisory forum is the place for the director to seek advice from his or her peers – and the forum would ensure the shared ownership of this venture with the Member States. The Commission can accept the extension of the membership of the advisory forum to stakeholders such as non-governmental organisations and academics. It will be an advantage for the director to have broader views when developing the operation of the centre.
The management board should steer policy and make decisions. The Commission’s proposal balances this dual responsibility in a way which we consider to be the most efficient and transparent. This approach is based on the principles defined in the Commission communication on the governance of European Agencies.
In a resolution adopted last month, Parliament welcomed this communication, recognising the need to limit the size of the boards of the agencies. The Commission wants to follow a consistent approach on this matter, as currently each agency seems to follow a different path. I now note that the Council and Parliament have reached agreement on a board for the ECDC to consist of one representative per Member State, three from the Commission and two from Parliament. The Commission considers that a board of 30 members is unwieldy and may hamper the decision-making process. Although, given the competences involved and being exercised here, I agree with the rapporteur that a good case can be made for one member per Member State being on the board. The Commission notes, however, the terms of the compromise supported by Council and Parliament and is therefore willing, despite our concerns, to go along with this compromise, given the importance that it attaches to the rapid establishment of the centre.
The Commission notes that the evaluation provided for in Article 31 of the regulation will cover the working practises of the centre, including the composition and functioning of the management board.
A full listing of the Commission’s position on each of the amendments is being made available to Parliament. In short, this states that the Commission accepts all amendments that are part of the compromise package as set out by the rapporteur. I also join with the rapporteur in urging that amendments
the package should not – and cannot – be accepted by the Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"outside"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples