Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-172"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.15.3-172"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I should first like to express my appreciation for the work done by the different rapporteurs and, in particular, by Mr Mulder for the general budget and Mr Guidoni for the agencies. These are the two reports that directly address the issues that fall under the competence of our Committee.
Firstly, as regards the general budget of the EU, I welcome the fact that Mr Mulder took on board in his report two crucial remarks in my opinion that were adopted by our Committee. The first of these remarks concerns the implementation rate of the budget in the ‘freedom, security and justice’ area, with particular regard to payments.
Although there was an improvement on 2003, when the rate was as low as 68%, the implementation rate of payments for 2004 remained inadequate at 83% and is clearly below the average rate of budget implementation. This led to a considerable increase in the amount outstanding (RAL) – from EUR 160 million to EUR 238 million. Obviously, the Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security must redouble its efforts to improve budget implementation. This will take on even greater importance in the context of the new financial perspective 2007-2013, assuming it is adopted soon by Parliament, as I hope it will be. Over the next seven years, the budgetary resources earmarked for the ‘freedom, security and justice’ area will be substantially increased, 163% being the biggest increase of any of the categories or sub-categories of the Union's general budget. The management of the Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security must be strengthened if it is to do justice to the political priority thus attached to the task of creating a genuine area of freedom, security and justice.
The second remark taken on board by the general rapporteur relates to the concerns expressed by the Court of Auditors about the way in which a number of Member States have made use of the European Fund for Refugees and, in particular, about the shortcomings of the national control systems in place. In this sector, as in many other shared management sectors, the Commission is obviously suffering more from the weakness of the Member States than from its own shortcomings. I welcome the fact that our general rapporteur opted to make this problem a key element of his report. The delegation from Parliament at the trialogue to renew the interinstitutional agreement was right to push for more specific commitments from the Council and the Member States as regards the monitoring of funds subject to shared management. Unfortunately, we are aware that the results have not matched our expectations.
I should like to say a few words about the agencies, of which there are many in the ‘freedom, security and justice’ area. If one leaves out Europol – and I should like to take this opportunity, as I do every opportunity, to remind the Chamber of our call to transform this from a merely intergovernmental body, as it is at present, into a Community agency, at the earliest opportunity – if one leaves out Europol, there are no less than four agencies operating in the ‘freedom, security and justice’ area, and that does not include the European Police College (CEPOL). These four agencies are the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, the European Agency for the Management of the External Borders and Eurojust.
Our rapporteur for the discharge for the implementation of the budget of the agencies, Mr Guidoni, is certainly aware that the agencies – and he said this a moment ago – are not always well received by some Members and the general public. He wrote in his report, and I quote: ‘the Community’s agencies do not always have a good image or receive a good press’. He went on to say, and I support him in this regard, that some of them do not deserve this negative image and that it would be appropriate to make EU citizens aware of the fact by using the appropriate channels as often as is necessary to justify the existence of these agencies and to draw attention to their results.
As rapporteur for the Committee on Civil Liberties, let me state very clearly that, in my view, and setting aside some justified criticisms of the Vienna agency, the agencies that fall within our sector are well managed. Their work is of high quality, and I do not see what other structures could do a better job of performing the specific tasks accorded to the existing agencies. This is true, for example, of the Frontex agency for the control of external borders and Eurojust for the improvement of judicial cooperation. I also wish to take this opportunity to announce – although I am jumping the gun, ahead of another debate – that I shall be tabling proposals to strengthen the agencies in question within the framework of the 2007 budget."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples