Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-14-Speech-1-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091214.17.1-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the European Parliament, I would like to thank the rapporteur for supporting the proposal put forward by the Commission aimed at releasing resources from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in response to layoffs in the automobile sector in Sweden and Austria and the construction sector in the Netherlands.
Mr Böge, your support was accompanied by several comments, in particular, two points of a budgetary nature which I have already had an opportunity to discuss in the previous debate and which I would like to return to today.
The first budgetary point you raise relates to funding sources. You tell us that the European Social Fund cannot be the only source of funding. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is, from a budgetary perspective, a special instrument which does not have its own resources. Resources must be transferred before they can be released which firstly means identifying budget items that offer suitable opportunities and secondly, proposing to the budgetary authority that the sums identified in this way be released via a budget amendment. This activity is performed on a case-by-case basis, according to need.
It is true that the European Social Fund has been the main source of funding so far. This is not merely a result of the similar nature of this fund. It is largely down to the fact that the fund has significant resources at its disposal. In 2009, the European Social Fund has almost EUR 11 billion available in resources for payments. By the end of November, EUR 6 billion of this overall amount had been used. The total volume of payments to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund represents EUR 53 million in 2009, i.e. 0.5% of the allocated budgetary resources of the European Social Fund. Up until now, the method we have chosen and which was, from a certain viewpoint, logical and easier than other methods, did not delay or put at risk fulfilment of the objectives of the European Social Fund. Nevertheless, however, I agree that it is necessary to diversify the sources of payments and I can assure you that the Commission is addressing this issue. I hope therefore that we will be able to present a number of possible scenarios to you next time.
The second point you raise is not exclusively budget-related, but relates rather to decision making, since you ask that in future, the Commission submit its proposals for releasing resources from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in individual documents. The Commission is aware of the advantages of this case-by-case approach, which would completely eliminate the risk of secret agreements or guarantees, for example. It is true that the method originally used was an entirely normal approach which, to a certain extent, facilitated administrative handling of the problems, but in my opinion, the pragmatic and political fundamentals speak very strongly in favour of a case-by-case approach and the Commission will use this method from now on."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples