Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011211.7.2-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there is an old Dutch saying which reads: ‘wie wat bewaart die heeft wat’ [waste not, want not]. This has proved invaluable time and again for those who have lived by it.
When we adopt the budget, it is crucial to set aside adequate reserves for unforeseen expenses. This was illustrated yet again this year. In this respect, the recent crisis in agriculture springs to mind in the first instance. Unfortunately, the Commission has abandoned its plans for a reserve in the sum of EUR 1 billion in the compulsory agriculture expenditure. In our view, the Commission’s argument for this U-turn borders on naivety and bears witness to a short-term view. Even if expenditure in terms of arable crops, dairy products, sugar, olive oil and mutton turns out higher than expected, expenses are far higher where vinicultural products and cotton are concerned. Our greatest frustration is the fact that BSE and foot and mouth no longer seem to feature in the Commission’s dictionary. Mr Görlach from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is right to remark on the underlying uncertainty as to the final end of the foot and mouth crisis in the United Kingdom and other Member States, as well as animal transports and the inconsistent vaccination policy. Additionally, I share his fear that the BSE crisis is likely to be around for the foreseeable future. The recent confirmation of a case in Austria speaks for itself. How does the Commission intend to pay for unforeseen expenditure? Will we once again have to fiddle with the ceilings agreed in Berlin?
The second point concerns the flexibility instrument. It is striking that these resources, an annual amount of no less than EUR 200 million, have been fully used up ever since this instrument was created three years ago. I do not call into question the validity of the spending objectives to obtain funding. What bothers me is the financing method. Why do budget headings not receive a thorough overhaul for unspent amounts and unprofitable budget lines?
This Parliament wants to be close to the citizen. It should therefore act as any sensible citizen – if it wants to pay for something new, there will have to be economies elsewhere."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples