Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-27-Speech-3-084"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991027.3.3-084"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I am very grateful for this opportunity to comment on Parliament’s amendments and perhaps I can also take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the honourable Member and to her colleagues who have taken so much interest in this extremely important matter.
The second issue which has given rise to a number of amendments is the desire to bring the Agency under the sole and direct responsibility of the Commission which would appoint the director. Independent experts appointed by the Commission would replace the Member States’ representatives on the governing board. The management committee would be replaced by an advisory committee. That covers Amendments Nos 6, 12, 14, 16, 19 and 22.
The Commission’s view is that the presence of the Member States on the governing board would, on balance, be good for the Agency and would make it easier to coordinate the Community’s and Member States’ reconstruction activities. The Commission would point out that this proposal is based on the standard format used for all the European agencies, though there are admittedly differences with this one. This includes representation of the Member States on the governing board and specific rules on the line of responsibility. The management committee formula is in accordance with the existing rules.
But I do not want to rest our case there. The Commission believes that a compromise that might take account of Parliament’s principal concerns could be reached along the following lines. First, instead of the governing board having decision-making powers it could have an advisory role on certain issues including the selection and implementation of projects. Second, the Commission could be given the task of appointing the director in line with Parliament’s proposal.
So what next? I think it is quite straightforward and I welcome what Prime Minister Lipponen said earlier today in response to a question from the honourable Member. I shall take these proposals to the Council and try to persuade the Council to accept what I believe is a sensible compromise that should, in my judgement, be acceptable to everyone. What we all want, after all, is to get on with an extremely difficult job in Kosovo as competently and as rapidly as possible. We all owe that to our team in Kosovo. We owe that to the people of Kosovo themselves and I certainly do not think we should play politics with such an important issue.
I hope Parliament will feel that we have made every effort to find a compromise solution to this extremely important issue and I hope we will be able to work with the Council in a way in which Parliament would approve.
Before I set out the Commission’s position regarding the amendments voted through by Parliament on 16 September, I hope you will allow me to stress that the Commission has tried to examine Parliament’s suggestions in the same spirit that I am sure Parliament made them: how we can best deliver our collective European effort on the ground in Kosovo and in the region as a whole.
I am going to Kosovo tomorrow with Mr Javier Solana to assess for myself how we are doing, so I will have Parliament’s views to support my very clear awareness of the need to get the Agency up and running as soon as possible. That is the best way we can reinforce the excellent efforts made already by Mr Franco and his team.
Let me set out our position on the amendments seriatim. The Commission can accept the spirit, provided changes can be made in certain cases to the wording of the amendments relating to accompanying measures, participation of local communities in reconstruction, coordination with non-governmental organisations, consultation of Parliament before the Agency extends its activities to other areas of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, of course, budgetary transparency.
This means Amendments Nos 1, 2, 4, 9, 15 and the second part of Amendment No 24. Some of the amendments – 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 21, 25 and 26 – relate to issues that are already addressed in the current version of the proposal.
On the following points, however, we do not feel able to go along with Parliament: merging humanitarian aid and assistance for reconstruction within a single body, separation of Agency revenue from appropriations allocated to programmes, exclusion from the agency’s budget of contributions from other sources, approval of the staffing plan by the budgetary authority and a report on the possible winding up of the agency after 24 months. This covers Amendments Nos 5 and 23, the first part of Amendment No 24 and Amendments Nos 27 and 28.
I hope there will not be too much difficulty on those points with our position. I realise that the biggest issues for Parliament lie elsewhere.
I am, of course, aware of the special importance the European Parliament attaches to two particular questions: the first relates to the establishment of the Agency’s headquarters in Thessaloniki and its operational centre in Priština, the extension of its mandate to the whole of the western Balkans and the bringing of its activity within the framework of the Stability Pact. This is the issue that is covered in Amendments Nos 3 and 18. Our view is essentially this. The Agency’s immediate aim is the reconstruction of Kosovo and thereafter, when conditions permit, of other parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is an instrument of the European Union and must retain its autonomy of action. Its headquarters can only be established in Thessaloniki as long as its operational centre in Priština retains its own autonomy.
The Commission believes that a compromise that might take account of Parliament’s wholly understandable concerns could be reached along the following lines. First, the Agency’s headquarters would be established in Thessaloniki and a joint declaration would be drawn up listing the general service departments to be located there. Second, another joint declaration would set out the terms for coordination with the Stability Pact while safeguarding – and I want to underline this – the Agency’s independence. Third, the Commission would undertake to report next year on the possibility of extending the Agency’s activities to other Balkan countries under a new regulation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples