Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-315"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.17.4-315"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to make two comments, one concerning the main objective of the subject of today’s debate, the guarantee by Union budgets of the external loans of the EIB, and another on the issues which I know concern this Parliament especially, those of transparency and the efficient use of the Bank’s resources.
In any case, the debate has been enormously interesting and I hope that what I have heard today will not be an obstacle, however, so that we can move forward with the approval of the distribution of resources, the distribution of loans, as from next year and that Community procedures are not delayed.
First point: In the ECOFIN of 8 November, a political agreement was reached on the Commission’s proposal of 23 April. It is true that the Member States still have some reservations. With the favourable opinion of the European Parliament we hope to approve this Council decision in the next meeting of the Council on the 29th of this month. The issue is especially relevant, given its urgency, insofar as we do not have a lot of time to implement the new procedure, since the current system ends at the end of January and we need to reach a bilateral agreement between the Bank and the Commission.
Therefore I would like to thank you for the work on the budget, especially Mrs Rühle, for her invaluable cooperation on this specific issue of the forecast of the issues. Having said this, I would also like to tell her that, with regard to the report, many issues have been accepted, while others we have not been able to accept for either technical or economic reasons. Our positions are perfectly well known and I do not know if it is worth repeating them. I would simply insist perhaps on the last proposal, which refers to amendment 11. As we have already told you, we think that it is much better, on the subject of the definition of policies, to speak of a solution by means of a Commission declaration to the Council rather than a modification of the decision.
However the problem which has been of most concern in today’s debate is that of transparency and the efficient use of Community resources. It is clearly not a new issue and many of you have worked on it for many years, and I would like to be a little less negative than some of you. Less negative in the sense that the framework of EIB relations with OLAF and the Court of Auditors is beginning to become clearer.
It is true – and some of you have said so – that, with regard to relations with the Court of Auditors, there is a problem of primary legislation which will clearly have to be amended, if the European Investment Bank is receive the same treatment as the Community institutions.
I insist once again that this issue is well-known, but no less important for being so: the Member States are the Bank’s shareholders and the Member States must take some decisions which, logically, do not correspond to other Community institutions. We are not talking about a greater or lesser degree of representation but rather simply a distribution of competences which at the time were defined in a particular way.
Secondly: Having said that, in what respect do I believe we have moved forward? I believe that we have moved forward greatly in the sense that the European Investment Bank has accepted that OLAF has all the information and means necessary to analyse the loans subsidised with Community funds, which must undoubtedly be our main concern.
It is true that we are still debating what will happen to the Bank’s activities in the cases where it uses own resources. And when we talk of own resources we are in fact talking about two different realities: loans with own resources and guarantees from the Union or loans without guarantees from the Union.
I would like this principle of openness which has developed in relations with the Bank to move forward and that finally we may arrive at a result which is satisfactory to the Parliament and the European Investment Bank, without forgetting, as I said before, that the EIB is a financial institution which can provide information with no restriction on any kind of issue. It can provide information, with some restriction, to OLAF and, of course, with regard to the Court of Justice, the final position will have to be that which is decided in accordance with the amendment of the Treaties."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples