Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.1.2-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is always helpful to have a debate before our first reading of the budget with the Council later this month, but the resolutions in front of us from Mr Podestà and Mr Färm highlight a substantive contradiction, at least for me and for my group.
Firstly, on the one hand we have under-utilisation of funds, where clearly, with the balance recovered by Member States now amounting to EUR 15 billion for the 2001 financial year, as Mr Färm points out, there is a significant financial and political problem, especially as regards insufficient payments in the Structural Funds. However, as Mr Virrankoski said, there has of course been poor implementation of payment appropriations amounting to EUR 82 billion. Is this because of the matters Mrs Buitenweg raised about Member States not wanting to use these funds? Is it poor procedures? Is it simply rigidity? It could also be related to co-financing, where the monies are not available in the Member States, in which case we need to take some care about the next steps for agricultural policy, because we could find ourselves in some difficulty if we rely on Member States to implement programmes.
Secondly, there is a contradiction between external policy and administrative policy. We are actually looking for funds to implement programmes decided by the Council or by our institution in the budgetary procedure. We know that Parliament has not actually approved the Afghanistan funding of EUR 1 billion and yet we see the Commission and the Council gaily going ahead, assuming that this will be the case.
Therefore, in the light of these two very contradictory approaches, it seems to me and to my group very logical that we should ask the Commission for more flexibility in the way in which finance can be transferred from one part of the budget to the other, because on one side we have too little and on the other we have too much. Yet, we find the Socialist Group wants to delete paragraph 12. Their speaker should justify why they oppose such a logical approach."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples