Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-260"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.12.2-260"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr Heaton-Harris has put six distinct questions. I will answer them all, but it will unfortunately take a few minutes.
The first question: firstly, in the memorandum of understanding signed by the Belgian Minister Mr Rik Dams and me on behalf of the Commission on 17 July 2001, it was anticipated that the negotiations on the Berlaymont should be concluded by the end of December 2001. However, on 14 December, I was informed by the minister that Belgium would not be ready to discuss financial questions until February because he was expecting the outcome of relevant audits. The audit reports eventually became available to him in March and intensive negotiations then started.
Since then, the positions of the Belgian Government and the Commission have become closer, but we have not yet reached final agreement on the price that the Commission would be willing to pay or on legal guarantees which are required by the Commission. Negotiations are therefore continuing.
I will take questions 2 and 3 together. The Belgian authorities have confirmed that the current estimated costs of the basic renovated building are EUR 605 million and the Government has confirmed its intention to make the building fit for reoccupation by 31 December 2003. The history of this project means, however, that the Commission considers that certainty about the realistic hand-over date can only be established when a specific date has been fixed in a contract that will also make provision for financial penalties for late delivery.
Question 4: Before the Commission enters into a binding contract with the Belgian Government, we will naturally provide the budgetary authority with an analysis of the outcome of the negotiations held with the Belgian government. As I have indicated on several occasions, the Commission's negotiating position is based on an independent analysis of the total cost as well as on those costs that are due to the numerous delays encountered in the renovation project.
Question 5: I can confirm that throughout all the discussions and activities related to the Berlaymont question, the Commission has been motivated by the absolute need to ensure value for money in the use of Community funds. That will continue to be a major pre-condition for a satisfactory conclusion of the negotiations with Belgium.
Finally, question 6: The technical description of the building will be legally binding and there will be legal guarantees for the quality delivered. By these means, we will ensure that the final product satisfies high standards of quality.
As regards efficiency, the Commission has made it very clear that we are deeply dissatisfied with the fact that the original deadline was not respected and, even more importantly, that it has changed on numerous occasions. As I have said to Parliament and to the Belgian Government, I believe that many of the difficulties encountered in this project are due to serious management problems that originated with the management structure of Berlaymont 2000."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples