Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-321"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.18.4-321"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you, Mr Seppänen, for your presentation and your report. I would like to make a few comments about your report.
Firstly – and here I would like to address Mr Korakas’ concerns – we are talking of humanitarian aid, of a process which is different to any other Union aid programme, whether a financial protocol or any other type. This humanitarian aid was initially granted as a result of the earthquakes which took place in August, but the Commission would also like to extend its scope to the most recent earthquakes which have happened in Turkey. We believe that the quantity will not be altered significantly, but we do think that it would be difficult to differentiate between the damage caused by one earthquake or another in a programme of this type.
Having made these initial comments, I would like to deal with the two problems mentioned in the report. The first problem is the risk of exceeding the type or total amount of the loans from the reserves and the loan guarantees. According to our information, this is not the case. We have carried out a thorough and detailed analysis, and, according to the information available, on the basis of the maximum use envisaged there is still a surplus in 1999 of Euro 33 million, of 8.7 in 2000, of 7 million –approximately- in 2001 and, although it is clear that in 2002 the situation will be completely different, there will also be surpluses in 2003. This leads us to believe that there is little sense therefore in modifying the system of reserves at the moment, because this difficulty would only arise in the event that we use the maximum forecast. Clearly you may ask me what would happen in the event that new situations such as this one may arise and we have to take further action. For this reason the Commission always has the margin to confront this possibility of an increase in the reserve Fund, although we feel that it is not necessary to do so at the moment.
With regard to the possibility of the 60 or 65%, we could agree with your idea of accepting 60 rather than 65%, which seems to us to be a coherent idea. This would require a modification of the regulations which are currently applicable, which in turn would lead to a delay in the decision-making process on humanitarian aid, one of the principal characteristics of which is urgency, so that we may quickly relieve the existing problems in Turkey.
Therefore I would hope that my explanations are satisfactory, that Parliament may reconsider its requests, that the acceptance of this decision may be dealt with as a matter of the greatest urgency with the guarantee that, if there are financial problems in the future, the Commission would bear in mind the need to go further with regard to the reserve Fund."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples