Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-229"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:General debate on the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 20032
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020924.10.2-229"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-24-Speech-2-2302
lpv:speaker	lp:Elisabeth Jeggle2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-17--2002-12-17)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Commissioner Fischler, it is undoubtedly a great opportunity to take part in this new debate and also to take the floor under the sub-heading of reform of the common agricultural policy in the context of the 2003 budget. In my view – and this is a view shared by the majority of the Agriculture Committee – the 2003 budget, which is the subject of today's debate, is not the right context in which to discuss reform of the common agricultural policy. Neither is a debate assessing Commissioner Fischler's proposals on the mid-term review on today's agenda. Instead we should focus on the actual budgetary figures for the coming year and here there are two essential points which most definitely require a clear decision from us. Firstly, the Council is proposing a general reduction of 0.8% or 0.6% across all 1a lines, which amounts to a cut of EUR 275 million. Secondly, in the Agriculture Committee, our colleagues from the Greens proposed a drastic cut in export refunds; to be more precise they wanted to reduce all export refunds to zero. Neither of these proposals can be right today. It would send out the wrong signal. Accordingly, in a vote on a proposal tabled by the PPE Group, the Agriculture Committee rejected both proposals by a majority. I am quite happy – and this may be a perfectly sensible course of action – to consider moving funds from the first to the second pillar, but only in the context of a dedicated debate on the mid-term review and on a codecision basis. Every year, to the great delight of the Member States, huge sums of money flow back to them from the agriculture budget. At present, the utilisation rate of the 2002 agriculture budget lines is around 80%. The reality of the situation does indeed support the call for better management and optimal use of agricultural funds. To mention the example of export refunds once more, this is another area where a great deal more could be done. For these reasons we, along with the majority of the Committee on Agriculture, are against anticipating the results of the mid-term review."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph