Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-17-Speech-5-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000317.3.5-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Maria Izquierdo Rojo, and the members of the Committee, for their report. The proposed regulation intends to provide the Commission with a tool to help it to present an operational model for European agriculture, and give wider publicity to the common agricultural policy. In this way, the implementation of agricultural policy is facilitated.
Now I would like to speak about Parliament’s proposed amendments. They are not generally aimed at changing the subject matter but rather at amending the proposals.
Amendments Nos 2 and 6 concern organisations falling within the scope of aid. It is the opinion of the Commission that it is not necessary to mention the groups and organisations by name. All agricultural organisations and rural players fall within the scope of aid according to Article 2. This being the case, the proposed addenda are unnecessary.
Amendments Nos 5, 8 and 10 concern measures that are eligible for aid. Amendment No 5 contains amendments regarding information services and fora for discussions for men and women in rural areas. They are unnecessary, as they are already contained in the Commission’s proposal. One of them, which reads “supporting them in their choices” is not in harmony with the Commission’s proposal. The purpose of this regulation is not to offer farmers any special services. Local bodies are better qualified to do that. The resources available would not be sufficient for that either. I would, moreover, like to make the comment, with regard to the amendments tabled for Article 3, that information visits are not being ruled out. The list of activities that are eligible for aid is not exhaustive, which is indicated in the word “particularly”. The Commission is prepared, however, to adopt this amendment. The funding of long-term exchange programmes cannot, however, be accepted, as such action is not a part of the information policy.
Amendment No 10 concerns Article 5. The Commission supports the objectives mentioned here, proof of which is to be seen in the fact that they are implicitly contained in Article 1, which concerns the operational model for European agriculture. That is why it makes no sense to repeat the contents of the model in further detail.
Amendments Nos 7 and 13 concern contributions. The Commission thinks that it is not desirable to pay more than 75% of eligible aid costs. The funds available are modest. The lower the contribution stays the more measures there will be that can be financed and the greater the multiple effect. Amendments Nos 9 and 12 concern the allocation and approval of appropriations. As we know, Parliament is a budgetary authority together with the Council. For this reason, the Commission thinks Amendment No 9 is not necessary. Regarding Amendment No 12, which proposes including the allocation of appropriations in the regulation, I would say that if the allocation is settled on beforehand, the administration of the budgetary heading will lose its vital degree of flexibility, which might be damaging from the point of view of proposed applications for financing.
Amendment No 11 concerns evaluation. The Commission agrees with Parliament on the usefulness of regular evaluation. It can best be taken account of in the implementing regulation. Amendment No 4 concerns administration. This extra recital is unnecessary in the regulation, in the opinion of the Commission. Provision for administrative details, evaluation and later assessment will be laid down by the Commission in the Implementing Regulation. In this connection, it has to be said that the effective monitoring of public funds has to be assured in the process regardless of how open and simple the process is.
Amendments Nos 1 and 3 concern linguistic nuances. These the Commission does not consider significant, as Recitals 4 and 7 in the Commission’s proposal are not as restrictive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples