Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.6.2-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, as a member of parliament from one of the regions affected by the floods, I am very grateful that this debate is being held here today. Here we are, worrying about how to get money to the victims. That shows that, as a community, the European Union basically functions on the principle of solidarity. I should also like to make a point of thanking Commission President Prodi for having visited the damaged regions in person. His visit clearly demonstrated that the European Union is alive and well and ready to help and did much to raise the stock of the European Union.
The local citizens saw that Europe is a dynamic force for help. I visited some of the damaged areas last week in preparation for today's debate and spoke to citizens and those in charge. The devastation is immense and the people are in deep despair. But they draw hope for a new beginning from the overwhelming sense of solidarity already shown in Germany and from the support coming in from further afield, including from the European Union, because they cannot cope with these problems alone.
The bottom line – I have been told time and again – is that money is needed, and needed fast. Apart from replacing personal property lost, we need, first and foremost, to ensure that infrastructures are restored as quickly as possible, so as to minimise the losses to business. Apart from cheap loans, which the Commissioner has already mentioned, I think we need to do more to ensure the money flows quickly. One way would be to provide funds from the supplementary budget or from the disaster fund which has already been discussed here today. This money needs to be provided in the short term.
The second way of providing funds is through the Structural Funds. I think both channels are important and are the right approach. However, in the case of the Structural Funds, we need to bear in mind that, under current legislation, the Structural Funds can only be implemented if there is 50% cofinancing. This cofinancing is entered in the countries' budgets in annual tranches and the corresponding funds are then earmarked. Additional funds cannot be provided in the short term. Which is why using the Structural Funds only makes sense if cofinancing is altered. What we need is a reduction, and I do not mean by a couple of percentage points; we need a drastic reduction just for this period, i.e. while funds are being used to repair the damage.
Nonetheless, the question of providing more money from the Structural Funds over coming years needs to be reviewed, as Mrs Krehl has already said. I think that if we take this on board, we shall have a huge opportunity to help people and win their confidence in the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples