Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-16-Speech-2-040"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-11-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Budgetary discipline2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991116.3.2-040"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-0412
lpv:speaker	lp:Kyösti Virrankoski2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Suomen Keskusta (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; CONT (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Averoff’s report on budgetary discipline is excellent and it affects the implementation of the next budget. The European Parliament has always been in favour of discipline. This means that Parliament has refrained from increasing its expenditure, although there may have been sums set aside for this in the margins, the Financial Perspectives or the basic agreement itself. Parliament has been very strict in the area of staff increases. The report now under discussion concerns agricultural expenditure. Agricultural expenditure is the EU’s largest item of expenditure, taking approximately 45% of the budget. For that reason, agricultural expenditure is the major consideration when we are discussing the EU budget. The ceiling for them is determined by a policy of agricultural expenditure. In practice, the ceiling is an interinstitutional agreement, which is clearly lower than the expenditure policy. This is another clear indication of Parliament’s accountability in matters of the budget. Agricultural expenditure is a rather sensitive issue within the EU, as agricultural policy is the only area where the EU has a direct influence on citizens’ livelihoods. In its practice of agricultural policy the EU has an exceptionally great responsibility. This particularly concerns the reduction of direct subsidies mentioned in Article 5(7). Such a situation cannot arise, as it concerns directly a reduction in the income of individual persons and is thus a curtailment of their constitutional rights. It would be the same as withholding pay. Agricultural expenditure now divides into compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure. LFA aid and environmental aid, in particular, are important in many less favoured agricultural areas. It follows that in future Parliament will have an even greater responsibility than before for agricultural policy. In this regard, the spirit of the report, which stresses the importance of cooperation between the Council and Parliament, is very good."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph