Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-024"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-10-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EC and ECSC budgets for 20002
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991026.2.2-024"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-0252
lpv:speaker	lp:Willi Görlach2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; PECH (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; AGRI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; PES (1999-07-20--2000-10-03)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, relations between the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Budgets were always tense during preliminary work on the budget. That is clear and, given that the greater part of the budget falls within the agricultural sector, it was only to be expected. Which is why it is particularly pleasing that, on this occasion, we can state that cooperation has been a whole lot better than in the past. This is in no small measure owing to the committee chairpersons and, above all, the rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, but also, it should be added, to senior members of all groups. Nevertheless, not all the wishes of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development would manage a majority today; we know that. All the same, we place particular importance on not accepting the Council proposals for across-the-board cuts and, above all, on providing for a moderate increase in veterinary and plant health expenditure and in sales promotion. Veterinary and plant health expenditure is not just agricultural expenditure, but also expenditure in terms of sensible, forward-looking consumer protection. The new second pillar in the matter of rural development is, of course, a special concern of the Committee. Here we simply cannot understand the reservation of the Council. We are pleased that, in its letter of amendment, the Commission opposes Parliament’s position. The multifunctional tasks of agriculture relating to food, maintaining the countryside, nature conservation and tourism as a job sector of the future which will expand rather than diminish are a major concern for the whole Parliament. The Council really must accept that, in future, changes will be made to agricultural sector expenditure across the individual blocks of which it is made up. But that must not lead to us pursuing the cheap option and imagining that we can simply free up money for other policy areas by making across-the-board cuts in the agricultural sector, which not only covers expenditure on farmers but also that on all rural matters. It should be noted that recent years have seen a convergence of Parliament and the Commission in this sector. The previous lack of vision on the part of the Council must give way to a more realistic approach, not least with a view to what the future holds for us in terms of the powers of Parliament, also where the budget is concerned."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph