Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-146"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.7.2-146"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable members, I only intend to comment on certain aspects raised during the debate. First, the structure of the budget in 2001: one speaker said that the agricultural budget would not rise sufficiently. However, I must stress that the agricultural budget has a very high rate of growth, namely 5.7%. If we include the expected supplementary budget, it comes out at nearly 8%, while other areas, such as training policy, the whole of internal policy – including research –, foreign policy, administration and accession aid have together only risen by 1.1%. We really must stress, therefore, that Parliament too has exercised immense budgetary discipline in the areas in which it has the last word but has, I think, brought about an excellent result with clear priorities nonetheless.
On Mr Mulder's comment: you noted that, because the budget at second reading was below the margin in agricultural policy, the risk of a change in exchange rates needed to be included in the calculation, because it would be not unwelcome if the euro were to rise against the dollar. I would draw your attention here to the rules of the Interinstitutional Agreement, which state that a "currency risk" of up to EUR 200 million must be financed from the agricultural policy and that only then can recourse be taken to the currency reserve. However, my view is that we should in fact take care in the supplementary budget to keep this reserve at EUR 200 million so that we do not have to take other measures if there is the slightest change in the exchange rate.
To Mrs Sommer's comment that too little account is taken of environmental aspects in the European Union budget, allow me to point out that one third of the budget is spent on structural policy and that we have mainstreaming in structural policy; we have gender mainstreaming to ensure that structural policy measures provide equal opportunities for men and women. The money must be used in order to increase employment and – and this is the third mainstreaming – it must be used in order to improve the environmental situation. That gives us an enormous amount of money to play with.
May I also point out that the EUR 4.5 billion under agricultural policy for developing the countryside, which we discussed this morning, includes numerous measures to promote environmental protection. In addition, agricultural policy also includes something in this area which is not standard practice in environmental policy and which fundamentalists may occasionally take a dim view of: namely that compensation is paid for refraining from taking environmentally damaging action. Here are your measures which quite explicitly promote environmental protection.
I should like to comment again on the charming question put by Mr Colom i Naval this morning. He asked what was the difference between revising the financial perspective and using the flexibility instrument? You are, of course, quite right to keep reverting to this question. I see it like this: revising the financial perspective means that if we make an increase on one side, we must at the same time decide where savings can be made. This requirement does not apply to the flexibility reserve. In this respect, the finance ministers' reluctance to revise the financial perspective is even harder to understand. Oh well, we live and learn. I guess this example also illustrates the fact that sometimes principles count for more than budgetary intentions.
I think it is a good thing that we have succeeded in activating the flexibility instruments and giving Serbia the help it needs on this occasion, although I fully agree with you that our strategy must be such that we prevent the phenomenon from arising whereby a European flexibility instrument wanders from one region or country of Europe to another, depending on where it is needed.
In closing, I should like once again to stress that, in the Commission's view, the 2001 budget provides an excellent basis on which we can together forge a good Community policy for Europe and I should like to thank you for the excellent cooperation. And we shall have the opportunity of continuing this excellent cooperation on the supplementary budget in January. But first I should like to wish all those involved in the budget a Happy Christmas!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples