Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991026.2.2-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this is my first budget. I should like to begin by thanking Mr Wynn and Mr Bourlanges and the other two rapporteurs for simplifying a very complex process for me.
I believe that the European Union is changing. The institutions are having to become more representative. In that spirit, we should be trying to bring the European budget closer to the electorate. It is crucial for the citizens of the EU to know what their stake in the EU’s policies and operations really is, what they are paying and what they are paying for. Increased transparency will be the key to the future success of all EU institutions. That means assessing every budget line to see how it benefits the citizens of Europe.
Given the commitment in the Treaty of Amsterdam to incorporating the interests of consumers into all other policy areas of the EU and the derisory level of the consumer budget, which stands at a quarter of one percent of total EU spending, there is a need to begin by making sure that valuable programmes such as the school milk scheme are safeguarded. This is not the case in the draft budget as my colleague, Mr Hyland, said earlier. The draft budget for the school milk programme throughout Europe has been reduced by 50%. This cut is a drastic measure for a programme that has benefits for both consumer and producer alike.
The reason I feel strongly about this budget line is that it has an impact on the long- and short-term health of people, it addresses social deprivation issues and it impacts on the economy and jobs in my region. I do not have any difficulty with the reform of the CAP if it means cheaper and safer products for the consumer. I know that people are concerned about paying for subsidies that increase prices for them as consumers.
The response I had from the Commission in the Budgets Committee was initially quite disappointing. They said that social issues are not within the original remit of the programme. But it now emerges from the Trialogue meeting last week that the Commission will be proposing an increase of EUR 31 million. I welcome this. I must say that I am disappointed that the Council is not here because I would like to know if they will support this. People out there are not concerned about the finer points or headings of the subsidy. What matters to them is the impact and the positive benefit of policies, such as this one.
I accept totally the need to streamline and introduce efficiencies in the management of this scheme and others and to improve value for money, but a more effective way in terms of amending the budget would be to outline improvements and provide an implementation plan for the future.
The Commission, in estimating spending, should look at funding in its totality. I call on Members to support this endorsement and amendment in Thursday’s vote."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples