Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.3.2-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, from the point of view of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the most important aspect of the budget is the codecision issue. We need a decision by the Convention to the effect that agricultural policy is to be included in the full codecision procedure, so as to overcome the separation of compulsory and non-compulsory resources. We must reach the point where we have full competence as regards the budget, including in agricultural matters. When that has been achieved, we would like to be given the option of flexibility in the items in which the resources have not been used up. Although that is already what we expect of the 2003 budget, we of course know that we have to reckon with resistance on fundamental decisions.
We take the view that the law of budgetary discipline has already cut back on the re-use of the compulsory resources or their use for other purposes, so that, if we increase outgoings, we have to have recourse to legislation, whilst the resources left over revert to the countries' Ministers of Finance. I can imagine that they would like that, but that can hardly be what Parliament intended.
Secondly, it is always being said that a lot of money is being spent. I favour a thrifty budget, even in the agricultural sphere, but we must again point out that our EUR 20 billion puts us under the 1.27% ceiling. It is not advisable for a parliament to financially restrict itself in this way. Politics always has to do with money – I mean that in a positive sense – and hence it would be sensible, and, from Parliament's point of view, also in the Commission's interests, not to overdo the austerity policy on these countries.
Thirdly, there is one point to which I would like to refer. You said, Mrs Schreyer, that preparations for enlargement need to be intensified; to date, EUR 30 million, which is hardly anything, has passed through the SAPARD programme framework. Here there has been no preparation, and that is highly regrettable. Let me again mention the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which was, however, taken up by the Committee on Budgets, and under which we are this year instigating an INPARD and a LEADER programme, as could have been done last year. Our intention with this is to facilitate the induction of the candidate countries into this bottom-up programme, so that they will be able to draw on the resources they need from the previous programmes after they have acceded."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples