Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991026.2.2-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, like others who have already participated in this debate I should like to congratulate the rapporteurs, but in particular Mr Bourlanges. In his opening remarks, he clarified for us the perspective for the 2000 budget in putting forward the idea that we have to have more programmes, we have to have more countries and we have to have less money. There seems to be a contradiction here which, in the longer term when we come to enlargement, when we come to a new intergovernmental conference, we are quite clearly going to have to resolve in the context of our budget procedures.
For my part, I would like to focus my remarks on three aspects which concern the running of European policies and the attitudes which we have taken in Parliament in previous years to these aspects. This is in the particular context of the Commission. We, as a parliament, want to make sure that accountability is seen to work for those who elected us and to make sure that we have value for money in the running of the programmes.
The first item in internal policy refers to information policy. In the last Parliament we wanted to make sure that we had proper functioning interinstitutional cooperation. We made progress in that respect by making sure that in terms of the general information lines, in terms of the specific campaigns, we had good cooperation on both sides. But we did not arrive at a common framework for this interinstitutional cooperation as we in Parliament had wanted.
There is some degree of concern at some of the initial moves the Commission is now making in its information structures which we in Parliament will keep a close eye on. In particular, we had asked in the last Parliament, and indeed in previous Parliaments, for the Commission and Parliament offices to work closely together in the Member States. I have put down an amendment, our group has put down an amendment, to make sure that we can have a report from the Commission on how far this has gone. There are still one or two countries where the Commission and Parliament are separate in terms of structure and we need to be particularly vigilant in instances where more than 75 or 80% of the appropriations go into paying for salaries and buildings rather than adequate information policies.
Secondly, in terms of external policy, particularly in terms of Kosovo, the hearing we organised a few days ago with the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets, was very revealing to me, in particular the fact that this is not a short-term commitment. We had evidence from Mr Bildt, Mr Kouchner, Mr Hombach and then from all the other agencies, that this is a long-term problem we have in front of us. We must, therefore, make sure not only that we get proper coherence between the agencies working on the ground but also Madam President-of-the Council, that we do not take decisions which mean that we are spending money futilely because of a Council decision that we must have some people removed some 100 miles away in another place. We must make sure that when we come to Mrs Pack’s report later this week we take the right decisions and that the Council understands Parliament’s feelings on that.
In the longer term, we must ensure that we have vision and – as you said Commissioner – we need to have the idea of building civil society in the longer term, not just as some kind of short-term project. Kosovo and stability in the Balkans must be a long-term project. It is us, as Europeans, who have to take that responsibility. We cannot expect others to take on that particular responsibility for us. I therefore welcome the idea of a working committee between the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets. We must make sure not only that funds are properly spent but that the ideas which are coming through are properly coordinated.
Lastly, in terms of administration policy, there are the Technical Assistance Offices. I would underline what Mr Böge said to the Council. The Council has been absent from this debate on discharge. With nonchalant ease, they have gone through approving the 1996, the 1997 discharge, and it has been up to us in Parliament to press for change at every turn. Therefore in terms of EU reform we are right, as a parliament, to say that we do not wish to see new posts until we know where the posts are going. What are the real needs of the Commission?
Secondly, we are right to say that we should not have Technical Assistance Offices performing tasks through temporary officials in what are meant to be permanent posts for the Commission. We must find some way of having a dialogue between the institutions over the next 12 months to make sure that these reforms take place and that we have the right kind of criteria for making sure that we are getting value for money from the staff. Otherwise – and I will end on this proposal: we must start cutting programmes if we do not have the proper staff resources available to run them, because ultimately we must make sure that these processes are accountable and we must make sure that we get value for money in the system."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples