Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-10-Speech-3-205"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071010.22.3-205"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many thanks for finding the time to be present here this evening despite the late hour. Indeed, the issue under discussion is not just some unimportant, marginal one – it is the common agricultural policy. I would like to start by reminding the House what this common agricultural policy actually means to the vast majority of our nearly 500 million citizens. After all, it is with these citizens in mind that such plenary debates are held.
In the Council, the issue of who publishes the information was very controversial. The financial management is mixed, so the Member States have clear responsibility – including under Article 53b of the budgetary decision. In addition, publication by the Commission would give rise to problems of legal protection, as persons affected by incorrect publication would have to go straight to the European Court of First Instance. This is neither citizen friendly nor particularly transparent. The Commission proposal is simpler, more transparent, less cumbersome to administer and more citizen friendly, and therefore has my support. It is in line with the provisions in all the other fields (the Structural Funds and the rules applying hitherto to the second pillar).
As the publication of the information is to be seen in the context of budgetary control, my report proposes a (moderate) flat-rate fine for cases of failure to publish information. On the subject of penal reductions in funding, I would say that I am broadly in favour, but there are some points where I should like to see greater regard for the principle of proportionality.
In the Committee on Budgetary Control, my fellow Member Mr Mulder made proposals concerning the budgetary dimension of the dossier, which I can wholeheartedly endorse. In the Opinion of the Committee on Budgets, the committee expressed its views on the transparency aspects, and these largely correspond with my proposals.
Ladies and gentlemen, and particularly members of the Council, this report was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I hope for a large majority in tomorrow’s vote, too. I implore the Council and the Commission to take this vote by the representatives of the European people seriously.
There will also no doubt be a correlation between this report and the way all those involved deal with it, and the expected Health Check. We will undoubtedly return to this subject when we deal with the Health Check.
Nevertheless, it can be noted in this regard that many citizens see the common agricultural policy first and foremost as an advertisement for the EU – but unfortunately an extremely bad one. Export subsidies, supposedly unfair trade with ‘third world’ countries, feed scandals, farmers’ protests, excessive subsidies, genetically modified plants – the number of negatively perceived issues relating to the common agricultural policy is immense and unfathomable.
Misdemeanours in the common agricultural policy have contributed significantly to the EU’s poor reputation in many parts of Europe. Ladies and gentlemen, this reputation is not something that can be dismissed out of hand this evening. This report, however – provided the Council supports it – could put the common agricultural policy on a new course, one that is closer to the ideas of the majority of citizens.
I should like to start by discussing the Commission proposal once more. It essentially comprises four elements: transparency, i.e. the publication of the names of the beneficiaries of agricultural payments; introduction of the possibility of suspending payments to Member States under the first pillar in the case of serious breaches in their management and control systems; shortening of the periods of time for Commission auditing if Member States fail to comply with their control obligations (exceptions to the so-called 24-month rule); and adaptation of implementing powers. In political terms, the proposals on transparency are certainly of outstanding importance to the EP. With these, the Commission is finally implementing the decision of the Council and Parliament on the 2007 budget.
In general I warmly welcome this project, although the Commission proposal is rather late in coming, probably partly owing to the incorporation of further facts into the text. Commission implementing regulations on the EAFRD are already envisaging publication of the names of all beneficiaries of payments under the second pillar. The other funds too (European Regional Development Fund, European Fisheries Fund, Cohesion Fund) now all contain publication rules. The budgetary decision has meant that, in essence, transparency has ceased to be controversial: it is no longer a case of
but only of
. Eleven Member States are already publishing all payments comprehensively.
We need more transparency, therefore. The absence of transparency has allowed the emergence of rumours and campaigns of disinformation, which have harmed the CAP more than the odd actual error. The only problems are with the
: after all, the Commission gives no details of the procedure and wishes to lay down all the more detailed provisions in implementing regulations. As we are looking at an intrusion on the right of self-determination over personal data, my report proposes some clarifications regarding which data are to be published and under what conditions. These expressly follow an opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor. In spite of the desire for speedy implementation, data protection must be taken very seriously – and the European Parliament is doing so.
The objectives of this report are as follows: greater transparency, and at the same time clearer data protection requirements. In addition, the general public must be informed. How can this balancing act be achieved?
In my view, it is essential to inform those concerned in advance, and there is no transparency unless the figures mean something. Therefore, I propose differentiating more clearly, for example according to intervention purpose. My report proposes name, payment and place of residence/registered office. Nowadays, transparency means publication on the Internet. We are talking about the creation of a general Internet platform with links and references by the Commission. It is up to Member States to make the information comprehensible by means of the relevant explanations.
Member States are permitted to publish the information at regional level, too, if they consider this appropriate. Different databases must be linked."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"if"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples