Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.3.3-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – First to Mrs Maij-Weggen, it is not the role of the Commission to coordinate the Member States in the UN General Assembly, that is their job. In general, what the EU Member States are doing in the political negotiating processes in the General Assembly is quite well coordinated. However, when we move into the boards of the different UN organisations the level of coordination is lower, and this is where we, as a Commission, have a real presence in terms of being more of a practical partner, very much in line with what Member States are themselves, but where we have no voice except in a very few cases, namely the FAO.
We are not asking for a new legal basis. We are asking for a closer partnership. We do not need it, but it would be nice if it were to grow over time into a role where we play a more visual political role. We will gain political influence by the changes we are suggesting, but it is a matter of process and achievement.
As regards the money I mentioned, the control issue: given the existing legal framework for how we can spend money, this is one of the few outstanding issues being discussed with the UN organisations before we can renew and improve the framework agreement on how we do things practically. This is the final round of the war of accountants, but it is in fact still on. We need a little more responsiveness from the UN organisations to give access to our auditors and controllers to follow our money, to open up in a manner which is comparable to what we have obtained with the World Bank. The big thing is that to work well in a normal partnership, we should not insist on having everything done according to our rules. If it is good enough for a Member State to do this together with a UN organisation and have its reporting accepted, it should be good enough for the European Union to do basically the same. But we can only do this when we have the financial regulation changed. Until then we are in the terrain we have described in this communication and there is ample room for improvement on how to do things. I hope we will in this way be able to build up confidence and thus stimulate efficiency.
Mr Bowis, I agree that the issue of mental health is a very large one. I would add other sorts of disabilities which, in a very poor environment, are often totally ignored. From a human point of view this needs more attention. In the humanitarian phase, we are now giving much more attention to the psychological aspects of the victims, not only children and women, but in general: it is quite clear that the demobilisation of soldiers is impossible without addressing the psychological aspects. I am very pleased that you mentioned TB and malaria as diseases that we need to give the same emphasis as Aids. This is another aspect we have tried to include in our communication and the programme of action on these communicable diseases. This is as important as sticking to the line of giving prevention absolute priority. We are trying to keep the broad picture of all these diseases at the top of the agenda."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples