Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.7.2-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, every year, the discharge is the highlight of the year in the Committee on Budgetary Control. I wish all rapporteurs every success in their work, and Mr Blak, in particular, who will probably ensure, for the first time in many years, that the Commission will be granted discharge on time. I hope I can congratulate him on that tomorrow. In fact, I also hope that he has enjoyed reading the answers to his questions. They turned out to be rather lengthy, and got the better of me at times.
The hallmark of this budget is the fact that the Statement of Assurance is still not positive. This has to become positive, and Parliament must also be able to judge whether any progress is being made in that respect. We as a group support every effort to secure this Statement of Assurance and we believe that it should be extended to include every sector, or maybe to include every Directorate-General.
I would like to make a few general points. The figures which we are familiar with show that agriculture is in a considerably better position than the other sections of the budget. That is very positive. Compared to the other sectors, agriculture can afford to present the margin of error of 3%, although this is probably still far too high. The Commission must apply this as soon as possible to the other sections of the policy, and other Commissioners must follow Mr Fischler’s lead.
I would like to comment on the superlevy in agriculture. We all know the system of milk quota. All farmers in Europe pay extra if they produce too much milk. There is one country which forms an exception to this rule, namely Italy. The Italian government pays the levy on behalf of the farmers. Is this not a case of distortion of competition? Should the Commission not do something about this promptly?
I am pleased with the Commissioner’s reply further to the Fléchard affair. Although we do not have all the facts of what happened between 1991-1994, there is every reason to believe that it was unacceptable. We are pleased with the fact that the present Commission has dissociated itself from this and that it is submitting proposals as soon as possible, which pertain, among other things, to the way in which the proportionality principle can be applied. What is the responsibility of the officials in this respect? When should it be assessed by the Commission or Commissioner himself, etc.? What are the exact procedures to be followed in those cases?
There are still many ambiguities surrounding flax. What will be important for this Parliament is the question as to what will ultimately be the financial correction which the Commission will apply to the countries which are involved in this. This will probably not only affect Spain.
My conclusion on behalf of the group is that we will be granting discharge. We are aware that this is the last year for which the Commission can say that it was not responsible. The real test for the current Commission will come with the examination of the accounts for 2000."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples