Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991026.2.2-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too would like to begin by thanking the three rapporteurs for leaving no stone unturned in their work. I would particularly like to thank Mr Bourlanges. I have often noticed that it takes him less than 15 minutes for him to win various people over with his eloquence. We adopted the Financial Perspective in May this year and it is a shame that we did not manage an absolute majority. We managed an ordinary majority. But at least we managed some kind of majority and so I think we should respect the Perspective.
My group believes that we should in fact do this as often as we possibly can. There is one category in which this it is difficult to do so and I intend to take this up again at a later stage. It is Category 4. In broad terms, I would like to lend firm support to the position adopted by the rapporteur where his policy on TAOs, the
Technical Assistance Offices
is concerned. If we look at the events of the past year we have no choice but to make this issue as transparent as possible. We must know what concerns the public sector and what concerns the private sector.
Let us just go through the various categories. Firstly, Category 1: agriculture. For around three years now we have had a new procedure for this: the ad hoc procedure. We are due to receive a report from the Commission at the end of this week containing the most recent estimates of how much agriculture will cost in the year 2000. I have no idea how the Council is able to determine where cutbacks can be made as early as July. A percentage cut in agricultural expenditure in all the lines is out of the question. It simply cannot be done. We must wait to see what the estimates are and after next week we will be in a position to talk about what exactly it is that agriculture needs. I feel that the course of action taken by the Council is very much against the spirit of the agreement.
As far as the innovations in agricultural expenditure are concerned, Category 1B, we firmly endorse those amendments that say that we must do something about the nitrate problem in Europe. We also feel that something must be done in terms of a quality-control policy for European agricultural products. Exactly one year ago a report on this was unanimously adopted in this Parliament and it happens to be the case that I was the author of it.
As far as Category 2 is concerned, we believe that the payment appropriations must reflect actual needs and I think that we need to have another exchange of ideas on the subject.
Category 4 is something my group has discussed intensively and indeed it continues to do so. I believe that I can put the rapporteur’s mind at rest. A majority of people supports his position. The majority of people believe that it will not do to make cuts in funds for other countries that need help. We must pay this money. The same group of people feels that Kosovo is part of Europe and ought to be given priority. Turkey must be helped and East Timor must be helped. There is also another group of people, probably a minority – and the rapporteur will not be surprised to hear that I am one of them – that believes that the figures need to be scrutinised once again. Can Kosovo really absorb the 500 million when its gross national product is between EUR 800 million and EUR 1 billion? I would be pleased to have another look at exactly how this has been calculated some time. I also feel that as much attention as possible must be given in the coming months to seeing if we can still solve the problem.
I would now like to say something about expenditure on administration. We consider it to be essential that the rapporteur and the rapporteur for the year 2001 get down some time to answering the question as to what exactly comes under part A of the budget and what comes under part B. Turning now to Category A-30 in particular: when can an aid organisation call upon EEC funding? The criteria for this are far too opaque to our mind. What does have a bearing on expenditure on administration? We hear this day in day out and many of us are uncomfortable with it. The proportion of elderly people within society continues to increase. The pension problem in Europe must be given serious consideration at some stage. I too believe that this will be a fine task for the Commission to attend to.
The phase we are about to enter between first and second reading will be particularly interesting this time round. I feel we must carefully examine all the headings once again for whichever way you look at it, a rigorous budget is what we need at this moment in time and that is what we are all going to have to strive for."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples