Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.5.2-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, alongside enlargement and foreign policy, agriculture and structural policy are the essential priorities for the budget. That is only right and proper, as the European Budget was originally agricultural in character. That has to be borne in mind when considering large areas of the Council's policy.
There is something dubious about constantly burdening the European Budget with new Community tasks without stating where the money for these tasks is to come from. As I understand these things, it certainly is not going to be from the agriculture budget! I do not see that it has to be our function to keep national budgets sound by dividing up the work in this way.
To that extent, it follows that the amendments taken up by the Council from Parliament's first reading are double-edged. On the one hand, I am glad that the Council has withdrawn 25% of the across-the-board cuts in the lines under heading 1A. On the other, this means, when compared with the draft budget, that we are giving out EUR 200 million, even though the estimated upper limit has a margin of EUR 2.6 billion. This money is not being used where it is needed – as aid that actually generates income. Money has been taken away even from the strengthening of the second pillar that has been called for on all sides. I am on record as favouring the support and development of rural areas, if it gives the people there a long-term home and the money is not wasted on local status symbols or allowed to drain away into national projects with ideological trimmings.
As regards the Commission's letter of amendment, I welcome the fact that the Commission has adopted some of Parliament's proposals from the first reading and, in particular that it is not making further cuts to export refunds.
It is important for me to again emphasise, in conclusion, that the agriculture budget faces attack on two fronts. On one, the Council is attempting to use the agriculture sector to finance ever more new expenditure, and on the other, redeployment of funds to a second pillar yet to be defined means that farmers are losing out on payments from the first pillar that generate income. Both of these things I regard as unfair and would like to take this opportunity to make this abundantly clear."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples