Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.5.2-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, since I only have very little time, I shall concentrate on three points: subsidies for tobacco cultivation, the administrative expenses of the Environment DG, and Natura 2000. In my opinion, the draft budget anticipates the reform of the common organisation of the market in tobacco, planned for 2005. As for the overall reform – the talk now is of totally decoupling aid and no longer of simply adjusting the current system – this should not take place before 2005.
Tobacco cultivation remains a distinctive sector of activity, affecting 110 000 families and generating 400 000 seasonal jobs. Reducing or abolishing tobacco subsidies would entail the disappearance of small family businesses dotting the European landscape and would open wide the doors of the European market to American producers. It would be undesirable in terms of the environment and of national and regional development, and it would be bad for the health of our fellow citizens, who would not stop smoking because of such measures.
As for the administrative expenses of DG 11, these are increasing exponentially, rising from EUR 58 million in 2002 to EUR 83 million in 2004. That is a huge rise of 43% in two years. All that to increase the number of civil servants responsible for noting breaches of environmental legislation. If these breaches represent 45% of current business, it is because the Community regulations are unwieldy, ill adapted and difficult to implement.
As in the case of Natura 2000, they are contrary to the will of the people, as France pointed out at the Environmental Council in June 2003. That being said, is it necessary to create a technical assistance department endowed with EUR 3 million, which would sort out neither the difficulty of implementation nor the funding after 2006?
In our view, this department would be a source of further confusion for people, who already have difficulty making sense of all the roles devolved to each level: Community, national and regional. Does not, however, the Commission wish, in this way, to have a stranglehold on the implementation of this Habitat directive, which does not fall within its competence? Because of all these issues, we shall not vote in favour of this budget."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples