Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.6.2-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we would like to add three comments concerning the Budget at this reading.
First of all, at the Commission’s proposal, Parliament decided to set up a Solidarity Fund within the budget lines B2-400 and B7-090 during the previous sitting. I expressed our doubts surrounding this fund at the time, and I shall now confine myself to the budgetary aspects. This fund is, to all intents and purposes, virtual, for it is still empty. When a major disaster does strike, we will need to find resources in the Budget for this Fund retrospectively. This strikes us as highly improbable. Furthermore, if more than one disaster strikes in any one calendar year, the Fund’s upper limit (EUR 1 billion) may also create a problem. Imagine that a major disaster strikes in the spring, to which the Commission assigns EUR 700 million from this Fund. What would happen if another disaster on a similar scale were to strike in the autumn? There is the risk that the resources allocated for the following year would be released prematurely. This could be the thin end of the wedge. Given the uncertain origin of the Fund’s resources, we are faced with the undesirable situation whereby there is a Fund for which no provisions have been made in the 2003 Budget. This means that after a number of years, considerable pressure could be brought to bear on the Member States to make additional contributions. Given the current economic situation and the freedom in budgetary policy that some Member States allow themselves, I can foresee major problems.
I should now like to make a critical comment on the Budget for the Sixth Framework Programme on research and development. The funding of research from the EU budget brings with it ethical dilemmas, as is the case, for example, in research on embryos. In the fanatical fight to fund research of this kind, the entire framework programme will soon be in the balance because at second reading Parliament refused to make any more guideline statements about the funding of controversial areas. Moreover, the Council would have been better to start the debate on ethics sooner and postpone the ethical guidelines until after the programme had been accepted. This controversy demonstrates that the framework programme should have been restricted to facilitating cross-border cooperation. Active financial support is undesirable and superfluous. Why should we co-finance research that is likely to take place anyway?
My third and final comment concerns fisheries. The Commission and Parliament devote much attention to the Spanish and Portuguese fishermen who, together with their regions, are let down by the lack of an agreement with Morocco. Millions of euros have been spent on compensation, reducing the numbers of fishermen and re-training them in those regions. Other fishing regions are also starting to feel the pinch now. Apparently, biologists are now advising the Commission to ban cod fishing and to reduce other quotas. This would have a major financial impact in the Netherlands, among others. Would it not make sense, therefore, to shift the budget’s attention to fishing regions that have been self-sufficient to date? Financial support for those regions in the form of socio-economic programmes is desirable. This aspect, however, is still missing from this budget which spends millions on fisheries agreements with third countries, from which only a minority of countries and shipowners benefit. Speaking of solidarity, it would not hurt for the EU to devote more attention financially to a fishing industry that has not been able to make use of subsidies for the renovation and building of ships for years. This has caused unfair competition for many years. A fisheries sector that keeps to the quotas should be able to expect more from Brussels."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples