Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.7.2-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the European Union’s environmental policy never ceases to amaze me.
It would appear that the Structural Funds are set aside for countries in line with the environmental directives, which is a discriminatory measure par excellence. On the other hand, we are legally able to add vegetable fats to chocolate, use GMOs, transport oil and its highly toxic waste products on any rusty old ship that is banned from entering the United States and lastly, pollute the Atlantic coast in complete impunity. Spot the deliberate mistake.
The LIFE programme, with its EUR 640 million budgetary allocation, is far from being a model of transparency, leading us to question the proper use of public funds.
In February I proposed – in vain – that the funds used in land purchase should be set aside for public structures, as in our view, public money should not be used as private real estate capital, even under the guise of environmental protection. The Commission also shares this view and in its clarification of the eligibility criteria regarding expenditure within the framework of the Structural Funds SEM 2000 stated that, ‘the purchase of land is the responsibility of a public institution or an organisation that is subject to public law’. I should like to know why the rules governing the Structural Funds are not applied to the LIFE funds.
I also put forward six other specific proposals that would be easy to implement, in order to limit local disputes and justify the proper use of public monies. It is with regret that I note that not one of these proposals has been taken into account and the use of the LIFE funds remains as lacking in transparency as ever with poorly defined eligibility criteria, somewhat vague, uncoordinated operations, reports that remain unpublished, a lack of assessment policy, etc. We shall therefore vote against this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples