Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.3.2-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, first of all could I put on record my thanks to Mr Bowe who was the budget rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment for the first half of the mandate.
The general approach to the discharge procedure is to look at the percentage of the budget line that is spent. If 95% or more is spent then a tick is put beside that item. If less than 80% is spent there is a black mark. But if we have the information at our disposal we should look more carefully at the achievement of goals with this money, rather than purely the fact that the money has been spent. For example, on the fifth environment action plan only 70% of the budget was spent. The reason for this is that there were not sufficient good projects; in fact some calls had no response at all. We should not give money to bad projects. However, there is one slight caveat to that: I hope our bidding systems are not becoming so bureaucratic that some potential bidders with good projects are put off from bidding at all.
I will mention public health budget line B3-4301 on combating cancer. In 1999 there was a substantial under-spend on that and I am pleased to see that in 2000 it was almost fully committed including the overhang from 1999. It would be verging on the criminal not to deploy resources allocated for combating diseases such as cancer.
It is true that the environment budget of EUR 200 million – that is GBP 125 million – was only half spent in the year 2000. The reason for this was the Life projects, which make up half this budget, and which could not be spent in 2000 because the legal basis was not determined in conciliation until July 2000. I am pleased to see that the five-year project has been telescoped into a four-year project instead.
Despite the substantial under spending in the budget that is largely due to the Life III lines, and bearing in mind that the Court of Auditors have not voiced concerns, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy recommends that discharge be granted in respect of the 2000 budget for the budget lines within its competence."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples