Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.5.2-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, we welcome the proposed reduction in payment appropriations. In view of the economic recession, Member States are having to tighten their belts, and the European Union cannot lag behind in this. The Council has made a number of substantial reductions in the draft budget. We do not share the rapporteur’s position of categorically opposing this. Particularly in Heading 2
Structural measures, 3
Internal policies, and 4
External action, we do not consider it necessary to earmark more money than the Council is proposing. We must not close our eyes to the enormous payment arrears in several items of the budget in these headings. The arrears in the structural funds are impossible to explain to voters; they amount to more than EUR 66 billion, two-thirds of the current total EU budget. A Swedish market research bureau came to the conclusion that the effectiveness of the structural policy is clearly not up to the mark. Does the Commission know the results of this survey, and what is it going to do about this persistent problem?
The European Parliament must also look closer to home and check critically whether certain policy sectors do in fact belong at EU level. For example, the fact that some people in this House want to use money for the EU budget for tourism is just one example of something that is preeminently a matter for the Member States. Money for development aid is also going to countries in the southern hemisphere, whilst that is a duty of one or more Member States which have historical connections with these countries. We are of the opinion that the 8.4% increase in the budget for the common foreign and security policy is inadequately explained. The European Union must not set up an organisation in parallel with NATO. That is throwing money away.
The EUR 18 million increase in subsidies to the Palestinian Authority is actually unwarranted as long as it refuses to unequivocally condemn and stop terrorist attacks on innocent people. Is the Commission aware of the IMF report, which shows that Arafat had USD 900 million deposited in secret accounts between 1995 and 2000? Finally, the Commission must be more critical when supporting third countries in the Mediterranean region. We must apply the human rights clause consistently in such cases.
We wholeheartedly support the amendment for a substantial contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq. At the same time we must stress that the extent of this necessary humanitarian aid should not be contingent on political differences of opinion between some Member States and the United States.
My group thinks that it is a bad thing that the reformation of the European Commission will deliver much smaller savings than originally forecast. The difference of EUR 8.8 billion is really very substantial. How does the Commission explain that?
Where we could also make savings is on the supervisory boards of the agencies in which each Member State has three members. Would it not be excessive if these bodies were to expand to 75 members per agency?
I must also comment on the management of the budget. It concerns us that expenditure on audits has fallen by 6.4% in the common agricultural policy. This reduction is unwise, given the problems surrounding the management of this policy and the intensity of manpower required for proper control of agricultural expenditure. This spring the European Court of Auditors presented a report on support for the so-called ‘problem areas’. What lessons has the Commission learned from this? Is it, for example, willing to tighten up the vague definition of ‘good agricultural practices’?
Finally, according to the people involved, the fraud at Eurostat is partly related to the limited resources the European Commission releases for proper statistics. Better cooperation between Eurostat and the national statistical agencies is certainly to be desired. Eurostat needs more independence for this, so that the impartiality and scientific objectivity of the statistics continues to be ensured. After punishing the fraud and improving administrative control of Eurostat, we need to pay attention to this. What is the Commission’s response to this?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples