Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.3.2-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the 2004 financial year will be an unusual one for several reasons. Firstly, our Budget will have to take into account the fact that, on 1 May of that year, ten new Member States will probably be joining us. For this to be possible, the financial perspective will have to be changed. Negotiations are still taking place on this subject, but, as far as Parliament is concerned, adoption of the acts of accession, and the figures they contain, should not automatically signify approval of the financial perspective. Further discussions will be needed on this subject.
Concerning heading 5, administrative expenditure, we shall have to look carefully at the results of the Commission reform. We shall also have to see what the results of the extra allocation of officials have been which we have carried out in the past, et cetera.
Regarding the last point, heading 7, a decision was taken in Copenhagen to categorise aid to Turkey under heading 7, and the Commission agrees. The Council, however, has also said that we shall have to wait until 2004 to look at whether negotiations with Turkey can begin. We shall have to look at whether this heading will have to be renamed and whether we shall have to divide it up into different sub-headings, et cetera.
My final point – I can hear your hammer, Mr President – is that I am anticipating constructive cooperation with everyone in this Parliament, and especially with the many committees. Lastly, I shall also be paying special attention to the point raised by Mr Elles.
Parliament has a very strong preference for a budget to be adopted in December of this year for 25 Member States. That means that we shall have to work on the basis of 15 Member States for the first part of 2004 and then, as of 1 May 2004, for the ten new Member States on top. The budgets will therefore have to contain certain remarks to make this possible.
Another new element of the 2004 budget to which I hope Members will become accustomed is a new system called ‘activity-based budgeting’. As I have said, everyone will have to become accustomed to this. What are the priorities of the 2004 budget? First of all – and Mr Prodi has already said this – we have to see to it that the economies of the new Member States are integrated into those of the present Member States. We must promote economic activity and, to that end, we must first of all create better investment opportunities in those countries, and we must look into all the means to make that possible.
The second priority of the budget is improving administrative capacity in those countries. How will they be able to cope with the enormous sums of money they receive and how can they see to it that good projects are submitted?
I now wish to say something about the various budget headings; starting with heading 1, agriculture. Everything will depend on the results of Commissioner Fischler’s mid-term review, but irrespective of this, we should like attention to be paid to a number of matters. First among these is the question as to the precise nature of the relationship between the payment of agricultural subsidies and European environmental guidelines. We shall have to determine this more precisely.
The second point concerns the question as to whether it will be possible to develop insurance schemes in the future for animal diseases. We are currently seeing avian influenza in the Netherlands, and we have seen foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever. We shall have to look into this. Furthermore, is it possible to take further action to promote the sale of agricultural products, especially high-quality agricultural products?
Regarding heading 2, structural funds, the main thing is that we have to do what we have promised. We have to see to it that the countries who have been told they may receive structural funds do actually receive these and that the administrative restrictions are not too restrictive. We shall have to investigate the consequences of the n+2 rule and the consequences of the 4% performance reserve.
As regards heading 3, internal policy actions, a number of items under this heading have already been laid down. For the rest, we shall have to devote attention to what Europe can do in the field of combating terrorism – which is very topical at this time. What can be done better at European level than in the individual Member States? What can we do towards the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice, towards better protection of the external borders and a better asylum policy? What can we do to improve nuclear safety in the new Member States? Lastly, I should like to raise another point: what can we do about the proliferation of agencies? It seems that every year yet more agencies are added. Is that not excessive? I should also like to raise a final point: what can we do about the ageing population of Europe?
As always, heading 4 requires special attention, particularly at this time. What will be the consequences of any crisis in Iraq or a crisis in the Middle East? We shall be confronted by many more points, and we shall therefore have to keep a close eye on those."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples