Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-219"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050906.32.2-219"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Mr President–in–Office of the Council — who is no longer present — Commissioner, it is not usual to hold a debate on an amending budget. In fact, other amending budgets are presented in this Parliament without any debate, even when the financial sum involved is greater.
Let us hope that there will be no need to mobilise any more than the sum currently available in the emergency reserve during the last few months of 2005.
The President–in–Office of the Council said in the previous debate that he is optimistic about the additional EUR 13 million that we have to fund in 2005. I too am optimistic, since, as the report makes very clear, we still have EUR 293 million in the flexibility reserve to mobilise. I am therefore sure that we will be able to find that 13 million in the flexibility instrument because at this stage we feel it is unrealistic to think that 13 million can be obtained in the final budgetary implementation of 2005. What is more, I do not believe I would be able to present a proposal of that nature in Parliament.
In conclusion, what is clear is that the European Union may well be top of the league when it comes to issuing important and solemn declarations which affect all of the institutions and represent a commitment in the external field. Unfortunately, the Union is in bottom place when it comes to turning the declarations it signs so solemnly into financial commitments. I hope we draw all the possible conclusions and lessons from this process and that, from now on, we can act much more quickly when it comes to unblocking aid to other countries.
We should recall that this amending budget for aid for the tsunami has required two different trialogues. It took up a significant part of the conciliation procedure of 22 June and furthermore, it has led to long and complicated discussions amongst the three institutions. I must acknowledge the efforts made by the President–in–Office of the Council at the time, particularly since he is British, and the British are very tough negotiators. I must recognise that he showed a degree of flexibility without which it would not have been possible to reach an agreement.
A solution has always been sought on the basis of the Council’s original position, which was completely unacceptable to the other two institutions.
The Commission originally presented a proposal for the funding of aid for the reconstruction of the countries affected by the tsunami which we in Parliament considered to be acceptable and logical. I recognise that if the Council had shown greater flexibility from the outset, we would be in a position to vote today for the European Commission’s original proposal. This is because the European Parliament had faith in the Commission’s proposal despite the fact that it involved reprogramming, which also has its drawbacks, as our colleagues in the Committee on Development quite rightly pointed out. We in the Committee on Budgets believed that such reprogramming was inevitable, but we demanded that it be confined to the Asia programmes or that, at least, the duration of the aid scheduled be extended.
Nevertheless, both the European Parliament’s statement and the statement by the Council in January of this year said that none of that EUR 350 million, which amounts to the bulk of the reconstruction aid, could be financed from the budgetary headings already committed. To put it another way — and this is what the Committee on Budgets and this rapporteur have been saying throughout. The new financial resources are necessary in order to fund new external commitments.
This was our main point of disagreement with the Council and the reason for so many failed negotiations. The outcome has been that it has taken nine months to adopt a final decision. It has unfortunately taken that long to reach a decision on the mobilisation of all of this aid in order to present it for the approval of this House.
The Council intended to finance part of this reconstruction aid by sacrificing programmes already established by the European Union.
Finally, the agreement has been reached at the expense of the emergency reserve, which was the solution proposed more modestly by the Commission in order to gain the agreement of the Council.
We in Parliament insisted in particular on the mobilisation of the flexibility reserve but, in the end, we have decided to accept a proposal mobilising the emergency reserve to a greater degree than we felt was prudent."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples