Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-315"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.18.2-315"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, I would for once prefer not to talk about the level of finance requested but about the financing method which has been put forward. Indeed, the Commission is proposing a very strange method of financing the estimated needs. Instead of setting aside funds within a budget line, it suggests finding the necessary finance from money which was originally intended for other purposes but which was not actually spent. As the rapporteur, with whom I worked extremely well, has already remarked himself, this is an extremely peculiar financing method, and I can think of at least three reasons why this is so.
Firstly, the safety of current and future generations cannot be made dependent on the fact that there may be some money left over somewhere.
Secondly, it is giving the Commission a very ambiguous message. Indeed, the budget authority decides on how much money should be spent on certain matters, but hopes at the same time that some money will be left over for something as important as decommissioning nuclear plants.
Finally, this financing method is also at odds with the principle of transparency. Indeed, it is not made clear how much money is reserved for decommissioning activities. The rapporteur claims in his report that the nuclear plants in question have been operated for decades with a view to providing direct support to the nuclear industry, which has been able to make use of the results free of charge. Is it a coincidence that there is little transparency in such a contentious area of policy?
The Committee on Budgets has rejected this working method. As already indicated, it proposed to convene a trialogue and to include the solution which emerges from this exercise in the budget procedure for 2001. Moreover, this trialogue can also serve to plug a democratic hole. Indeed, the budget instrument can serve as a big stick in order to secure a say in the programme content. I hope that Parliament can support this proposal made by the Committee on Budgets."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples