Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-074"

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	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991026.2.2-074"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-0752
lpv:speaker	lp:Ulpu Iivari2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2001-05-13)3 substitute; BUDG (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue/Finlands Socialdemokratiska Parti (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; PETI (1999-09-16--2000-10-26)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, adopting the budget for the cultural sector is more difficult than usual this time. The Socrates II programme is presently the object of conciliation, and the recommendations for a second reading on the Youth for Europe action programme and the Culture 2000 programme will be discussed in the plenary sitting on Wednesday, which is tomorrow. Thus the final effort to have these multiannual programmes approved still remains to be made. The greatest differences of opinion between Parliament and the Council relate to the financing of the programmes, which is still open. At the same time, the Committee on Budgets has had to present the allocations for the implementation of the programmes next year. It has to be clearly pointed out that the figures presented by the Committee on Budgets do not constitute a stand on the result of conciliations. A schematic mathematical method is not suited to multiannual programmes. The financing of the programmes has caused worry to the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and it might not be just a one-off problem. We have to alter parliamentary procedures with regard to the budgetary procedure for multiannual programmes that are the object of the codecision procedure. The opinion of the Committee on Budgets relates to the report on the first reading, but there is no official collaboration between the special committee and the Committee on Budgets in connection with the second reading and conciliation. That can easily lead to breaks in the flow of information and misunderstandings between the special committee and the Committee on Budgets. The worst that can happen, however, is that Parliament’s position on financing for the programmes remains unclear; that can be used against Parliament. As multiannual programmes must in any case adapt to the general Financial Perspective of the relevant budget heading as well as the budget as a whole, it is necessary, in my opinion, for Parliament to enhance the effectiveness of its internal coordination when discussing multiannual programmes and the budget. Communication between the special committee and the Committee on Budgets should not be broken at Parliament’s first reading, after which some time might pass until the matter is finally resolved. The Treaty of Amsterdam emphasises Parliament’s position as a responsible and effective decision-maker. That is why we need Parliament to have a common and sustainable view of the matter under discussion in budgetary negotiations and conciliations."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph