Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-250"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.5.3-250"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to start by associating myself with the thanks expressed by Commissioner Günter Verheugen, who spoke before me. I too would like to thank you for the broad support with which the Commission's proposals have met in this debate. I just want to address one or two points, and do so briefly.
The first concerns the Sapard programme, which was referred to by a very large number of speakers in the debate. I would, firstly, like to point out that seven programmes are currently up and running; the great question is, of course, in which candidate country. I am able, though, to give you the good news that another country is to be added this month, namely Poland, which is to be given more funds than the other seven countries participating to date. You can take that as an indication that it is a bit too simple to concentrate only on percentages and amounts. This way of looking at things must, I believe, take account of the differences between the candidates, and also, of course, of the need to establish a system that will subsequently meet, for example, with the approval of this House's Committee on Budgetary Control.
It is the case that the introduction of this system has been very demanding in terms of effort, and that it has also resulted in delays, but it is not true that these setbacks and delays can be laid only at the Commission's door.
I would like to give you something of a warning against resuming the debate on an INRA programme or whatever the thing is called, by which I mean a warning that we would only be delaying matters still further if we were now to start a debate about amending the financial legislation or even the Financial Perspective, or if we were to invent new bureaucratic structures that first needed to be developed. I do, though, understand that the concerns of civil society are having a greater influence on the administration. We will have to do some thinking about that.
My last point is that a very large number of you have mentioned the agricultural reforms. Let me make it quite clear that I am committed to them, and have always affirmed that we need them, and that agricultural reforms are a process with which we have to press on. I only hope, when we in the Commission decide on our proposals for the mid-term review on 10 July, that they will meet with just as much approval in this House, especially from all those who have, today, called for further reforms.
I would, though, like to reiterate that conflating the enlargement process in any way with further agricultural reforms or even making the one dependent on the other will not just create difficulties for enlargement, but will delay both it and further reforms. We are therefore firmly convinced that the two must be kept separate and progress made on both of them without delay."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples