Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991026.2.2-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Many thanks for your interesting and highly varied contributions to the debate, and above all, thank you very much for making the atmosphere in which this debate has taken place an extremely constructive one. I would like to limit myself to a few points in my speech, points which I would like to come back to since, in my view, Parliament and Commission proposals must be reconciled. I wish to refer, firstly, to market measures in the agricultural sector. The Commission agrees that it is of course, necessary for the budget appropriations for the year 2000 to correspond to actual requirements as far as possible, and that no artificial reductions should be made here. That was our position in the preliminary draft budget and it will be maintained in the letter of amendment.
Turning now to the measures in the rural development sector, I had pointed out that I also considered this second pillar of agricultural policy to be an absolutely essential addition. Accordingly, the Commission will propose a limited increase for agricultural development measures so that the Member States are also given the incentive to step up their efforts as far as environmental protection in the agricultural sector is concerned and as regards establishing structures to ensure safety in the food chain.
I would like to mention the issue of research. It is being proposed here to divide up those budget lines in the budget plan which relate to the research sector. I believe that there is a pre-condition to consensual solutions. The Commission will always inform the European Parliament before there is a need to amend the appropriations for key actions and before these amendments are actually carried out, and it will of course substantiate these in full. I hope that on this basis we will be able to reach a consensual solution as to how matters are to be represented in the budget plan.
I will now turn to the question of the TAOs, which Mr Bourlanges, Mr Wynn and Mr Elles went into very deeply again. The new Commission will undertake and examine the award of contracts to the technical assistance offices according to the various criteria, which, again, you have discussed, in order to reach a clear decision here as to what has to be undertaken by public administration and what can be undertaken by the assistance offices. This issue will also be a main theme of the blueprint paper on administrative reform and institutional reforms. It will then also be possible, against the background of this blueprint – as is desired by the European Parliament – to estimate the overall staffing requirement.
Finally, I would just like to address the question of financing the important measures associated with reconstruction in Kosovo. Mr Bourlanges rightly pointed out that it is not a task which lasts only one year. On the other hand though, we are in a situation where we do not yet have a definite basis to be able to estimate the overall requirement. That is why the Commission is proposing that we should first review the Financial Perspective for the year 2000 and only then, once definite figures are available, should we talk about how the necessary funds for the ensuing years are to be made available.
There have also been a few critical comments made on the question of what our approach will need to be in the year 2000. The question of how the sum of EUR 500 million stands in relation to Kosovo’s estimated GDP is indeed worthy of mention. On the other hand, though, I think that we should continue to stand by the figure that the EU has in fact quoted in the political sphere – it has said that it will make EUR 500 million available for the year 2000 – so as to avoid giving the impression that the EU is backing out of its political responsibilities. I have gained the impression from this debate that the Commission’s proposal, which I myself put forward, could form a sound basis for compromise.
I would like to come back again to Mr Böge’s and Mrs Buitenweg’s contributions to the debate. The Commission proposes a limited revision, as you yourselves mentioned, and it also very important that we should make a point of providing for and taking account of ECHO measures for Kosovo. The Commission will therefore propose that all three instruments should be used i.e. reallocation of funds, use of the flexibility instrument and review of the Financial Perspective. In the Institutional Agreement we all have an excellent legacy on which to base our handling of Budget 2000 and fruitful cooperation, and as far as that goes, I am very confident, having had this debate, that it will be possible to reach a consensual solution and make the budget for the year 2000 one in which we can have faith."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples