Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020924.4.2-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, like my colleagues, I endorse the Commission proposal that has been tightened up by Mr Casaca. As we have grown accustomed from Mr Casaca, it is a very sound report with good recommendations, and I regret that the Commission is unable to indicate that it will be adopting all of Mr Casaca's proposals, certainly in the light of the wide support which these proposals are enjoying from the Committee on Budgetary Control. One of the aspects involved is the legal basis of this proposal. As is generally known, we take the view that this should be Article 280 because it is essentially about the good management of EU funding. This is not about giving in to the agricultural lobby for the umpteenth time. In a way, the agricultural subsidies are, in fact, the EU's best kept secret. We know that a great deal goes wrong. Only last week, it transpired from the Court of Auditors' report that subsidies for oilseeds are being misused on a large scale, and yet, little seems to be done about it.
It is absolutely essential that we should make these flows of funds transparent. Indeed, not a great deal of aid lands with the small farmers for whom it is intended, but ends up instead with large multinationals, as Mr Casaca has already explained. Yet, it is not possible to make this data public. The VVD and CDA in the Liberal and Christian-Democratic groups – that are, incidentally well represented in this debate today – are opposed to making these public. Why? Fear of public access? Mrs Maij-Weggen was this Parliament's rapporteur who spoke in favour of public access to documents. The Liberal group has always set great store by public access. So that cannot be the stumbling block. Could other elements be at play, such as self-interest and looking after the group's supporters? Or a reluctance to make the flows of funds transparent because that would clearly demonstrate the need for reforming the Common Agricultural Policy? I am afraid that this is the case.
I also regret that Mr Mulder is unable to support Amendment No 10 by Mr Casaca about making the flow of funds known, giving the excuse – for it is nothing but an excuse – that anything that does not apply to other areas of policy should not apply to agriculture either. Mr Mulder constantly hides behind this argument. He has done this for the past couple of years, and this is not the way forward, certainly not given the fact that the agricultural budget accounts for half of the European budget. This problem will become more pressing following enlargement. Even more businesses will join, and it is then even more important that we know where the money ends up.
Agricultural policy has taken on undesirable forms over the past few years. Subsidies do not end up with those for whom they are intended. An example of this, which was quoted only this summer, is the fact that even the Dutch Queen receives subsidies for creating an olive tree plantation in Italy. If there is somebody in Europe who does not need this money, then surely it is one of the world's richest women. And this is going on while rural policy in Groningen in the Netherlands, for example, has insufficient funding to help small farmers keep their heads above water.
This proves that this policy has got out of hand and that we must inject transparency into the flow of funding. This could, in turn, serve as a basis for a thorough reform even before the new Member States join. For this is desperately needed. Mr Casaca's report is a first step in this direction."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples