Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.5.2-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, this is my first year in the European Parliament and I have been struck during the course of this budget debate by the contrast between rhetoric and delivery. Last year when we were discussing the budget, we had politicians in the Member State governments who were posturing on the issue of renewable energy, whilst at the same time proposing major cuts to the Save programme in this Parliament. I found that to be a curious position. But here we are yet again, twelve months later, in a situation in which ministers from Member State governments have come out of summits, preening themselves over their ambitious targets for research, while the draft budget prepared by the Council makes total cuts in payment appropriations in the research subsection of the Fifth Framework Programme of no less than EUR 100 million. So there really is a stark difference between delivery on the part of the Council, and the rhetoric that the Council uses.
My committee has mandated me to make that point and we will certainly, in a sense of discipline, be aiming to see at least one half of that cut in payment appropriations being restored in the plenary vote.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs Haug on the work done in the Committee on Budgets, particularly the work done to restore lines in relation to small- and medium-sized enterprises, again cut by the Council. That has been a priority of our committee and a priority of this Parliament. Again, it is difficult to reconcile the rhetoric of the Council with its proposals in that area. The proposals put forward by our committee and supported by the Committee on Budgets are much better.
It would take more than the one minute I have left if I were to go into all of my committee’s views in relation to the Meda programme. We know the difficulties. Commissioner Patten has outlined them to us, but there is important work to be undertaken within the area of the Meda programme. We only have to look at our television sets to see the difficulties in the Middle East to be reminded of that each and every day.
I am also the draftsman for my committee on Mrs Rühle’s report on the ECSC budget. Let me briefly touch on a number of items there. We are of the view that there should be much more emphasis on developing research. I saw that strain in her report as well. We want to see it increased by 10%. The priorities should be clean technology, environmental protection and remediation and safety for the future. Mrs Rühle agrees with me on that, so again in that area there is consensus within this Parliament which, I am bound to say, all too sadly is not often shared by the Council."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples