Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-048"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-03-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2003 budget guidelines2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020312.3.2-048"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-03-12-Speech-2-0492
lpv:speaker	lp:Elisabeth Jeggle2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-17--2002-12-17)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have been given the opportunity to speak on Section III of the 2003 budget, having monitored the report in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on behalf of my group, that of the European People's Party. I therefore want primarily to set out the concerns behind the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development's amendments to this report by Mr Färm, whom I will take this opportunity of warmly thanking for his work. Today we are not discussing the 2003 budget, but the budget guidelines which express our fundamental thinking, and I am here to present that of my group in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. For a start, we want, in the first instance, resources from Chapters B1-1 to B1-4 to be capable of being carried over individually to the following year. In the long term, though, we also want compulsory and non-compulsory resources to be able to be carried over, something that presupposes Parliament's right of codecision in agricultural matters. Secondly, we have a further demand with regard to the increase in the flexibility reserves with a view to potential crises and emergencies. Thirdly, even though the majority on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development voted differently on this point, we are opposed to the introduction of the INPARD programme, which will lead only to a further fragmentation of the resources, demand for which on the part of the candidates for accession has been slack. A supplementary programme of this sort will, moreover, bring only additional bureaucracy in its train. Fourthly, and – for us – most importantly, the 2003 Budget is not to be used to prejudge the mid-term review of Agenda 2000. In this report, we do not want agricultural reform right now. What we need is a further development of European agricultural policy. The resolutions on Agenda 2000 are for us the binding foundation. The agricultural budget must not become a quarry for every kind of desirable commodity, but must set forth a reliable agricultural policy option."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph