Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-01-Speech-1-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011001.7.1-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – First of all I thank Parliament's responsible committees and their rapporteurs.
To conclude, let me answer Mr Mombaur's question on the specific issue concerning the legal basis of the three-year Commission proposals. As you know, they are based on a protocol annexed to the Nice Treaty and we will now have to reflect on how to deal with the uncertainty surrounding the entry into force of the Treaty. The Commission's services are currently exploring this issue and considering alternative scenarios. So the answer is that we will have to continue to look at that particular issue. Thank you once again for the careful analysis of the Commission proposals, your contributions to this debate and for your attention.
These proposals are the final product of a long discussion process initiated by the Commission ten years ago. The concept proposed by the Commission is to revert the ECSC assets to the remaining Communities upon expiry of the Treaty and to use the resources produced from these assets for the sole purpose of funding research in the sectors related to the steel and coal industry. This concept has been discussed with industry, the social partners, the European Parliament and the Member States. Eventually all stakeholders endorsed it.
The Member States have been very closely associated in this discussion, which is completely justified since together they are the owners of the ECSC assets. If there were no agreement on the Member States' side these assets would simply revert to them, in line with the principles of international law.
The European Council has provided us with detailed guidance on the subject, firstly at the Amsterdam European Summit in 1997 and more recently at the Nice intergovernmental conference last year. On this latter occasion the Member States adopted a protocol attached to the Nice Treaty which details the arrangements regarding the expiry of this Treaty. The Commission is bound to respect the decisions taken in Nice. It is in this context that the Commission has to address your amendments.
You have requested that all three decisions should be adopted through the codecision procedure. I regret to say that the Commission cannot accept this request. In the case of the framework decision, the decisional procedure has already been agreed upon by the intergovernmental conference in Nice. For the two decisions on the financial and research guidelines respectively, the Commission has followed the same line as for other, similar proposals in research policy or regarding our financial regulation. For example, the specific programmes of the European Union Research and Development Framework Programme are submitted to Parliament for its opinion, as is the case for the Financial Regulation. If the Commission departed from this line it would not be consistent. On the other hand, I would like to stress that Parliament's involvement in the proposed arrangements is much stronger than it was under the ECSC Treaty.
As regards the budgetisation of the funds after the expiry of the Treaty, the Commission agrees that the resources and the expenditure will be incorporated into the general EC budget. However, they will consist of earmarked revenue which, according to our Interinstitutional Agreement, is not covered by the financial perspectives. Therefore we could not go along with the proposal to simply incorporate the resources and the expenditure into Chapter III, internal policies of the budget, and to delete any reference to earmarked revenue.
You also suggested that within two years, by 24 July 2004, the Commission should make proposals to enlarge the post-ECSC research fund into a European research foundation covering all research sectors over and above steel and coal. Indeed, I am aware that such a foundation has been suggested to us on several occasions. I have noticed that the corresponding amendment refers to the draft decision on the research guidelines only. From a legal point of view the research guidelines lay down the technical provisions related to the implementation of the research activities, but they cannot cope with an issue of an institutional nature like this one.
More generally speaking, the proposal to set up a research foundation has already been made to the Commission on several occasions, in particular in the course of the discussion in the Council, but it was rejected. The first reason is that the management of the ECSC funds after 23 July 2002 will involve three aspects: firstly, the management of the ECSC commitments existing on that day until their expiry – and in some cases they will continue for 20 years or more; secondly, the financial management of the ECSC assets; and thirdly, the management of the research fund financed from the resources produced from this financial management. The three elements are therefore closely interlinked and it is not possible to isolate any one of them. Furthermore it is clear that a majority of Member States oppose the implementation of the research fund through a foundation. Finally, the very small amount involved in the proposed research fund would not justify the creation of a foundation. Therefore the most sensible solution is that the Commission, which has managed all ECSC operations so far, should continue to manage them all.
Finally, I have taken note with particular interest of your request that environmental considerations should be given priority in the operations of this coal and steel research fund. I am pleased to say that current research projects financed under the ECSC Treaty already put much emphasis on cleaner technologies, energy saving and the protection of the environment in both the coal and steel sectors. I can assure you that we will continue to attach great importance to these considerations, as well as the issue of safety at work, in the research guidelines which we are now proposing."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples