 third countries. So the three lines you mentioned are not relevant to my question.
You also said, however, that in the case of the BSE crisis we did indeed find it possible to help with the great economic problems created by BSE. But, Mr President-in-Office, we found the resources to do so only by taking them from other lines, in other words farmers in other EU countries were deprived so that we could help Great Britain's livestock breeders. It was right to help them, but not to the cost of other breeders or farmers in our countries. For that reason, I believe that this reserve of 1 billion ECU - it is a reserve today, it is for the needs of agriculture, Mr President-in-Office, and we are holding it in reserve - could be used within the scope of the EAGGF to create a fund under the control not of the Commission but the Council, which would be used in cases such as BSE and other agricultural disasters in all the European Union's countries.

Patijn
I understand the thrust of the honourable member's argument, but I hope she will agree with me that we have to abide by a number of premises. Firstly, whether you agree with this or not, when drawing up the budget in the Council we work very strictly within the agreed financial perspective and the budget ceiling. If you ask for a large sum to be hived off for a general contingency reserve, that means that when the budget is drawn up that sum will of necessity be unavailable for legitimate, predictable budgetary spending. The cuts will be entered afresh. But what happens is that with a budget of some 70 billion ECU you find in the course of the year that here and there the funds are not fully used up, and these can then be used to cope with special unforeseen emergencies like the BSE crisis. I do not regard it as sophisticated budgetary policy to set aside very large contignency amounts which directly reduce the expenditure items which have priority and which are predictable.

President
As the author is not present, Question No 6 lapses. Question No 7 by Jonas Sjöstedt (H-0057/97):
Subject: The consequences for Norway and Iceland of integrating Schengen
The current IGC is discussing the integration of the Schengen Agreement in EU law. Negotiations are also in progress on Schengen associate status for Norway and Iceland.
What effect would integrating Schengen in the
third countries. So the three lines you mentioned are not relevant to my doubt. 
 You besides said, however, that in the case of the BSE crisis we did indeed witness it potential to help with the great economic problems create by BSE. But, Mr President - in - Office, we found the resources to make so only by aim them from other lines, in early words farmers in other EU countries were deprived so that we could help Great Britain's livestock breeders. It was correct to help them, but not to the cost of other breeder or farmers in our countries. For that rationality, I believe that this modesty of 1 billion ECU - it is a reserve today, it is for the needs of agriculture, Mr President - in - Office, and we are holding it in reserve - could be use within the scope of the EAGGF to create a fund under the control not of the Commission but the Council, which would be used in case such as BSE and other agricultural disasters in all the European Union's countries. 

 Patijn 
 I understand the thrust of the honourable member's controversy, but I hope she will agree with me that we have to digest by a numeral of premises. Firstly, whether you agree with this or not, when pull back up the budget in the Council we work very strictly within the agreed fiscal perspective and the budget ceiling. If you ask for a large sum to be hived off for a general eventuality reserve, that means that when the budget is drawn up that sum will of necessity be unavailable for legitimate, predictable budgetary spending. The cuts will be enroll afresh. But what happen is that with a budget of some 70 billion ECU you find in the course of the year that here and there the funds are not fully used up, and these can then be used to cope with limited unforeseen emergencies like the BSE crisis. I do not regard it as sophisticated budgetary policy to set up aside very big contignency amounts which directly shrink the expenditure item which have precedence and which are predictable. 

 President 
 As the author is not present, Question No 6 lapses. doubt No 7 by Jonas Sjöstedt (H-0057/97 ): 
 Subject: The consequences for Norway and Iceland of integrate Schengen 
 The current IGC is discussing the consolidation of the Schengen Agreement in EU law. Negotiations are also in advancement on Schengen associate status for Norway and Iceland. 
 What effect would integrating Schengen in the
 thlrd countries. So the thrte lines you mentnined ace not delevant to my question.
You also said, hiwevee, that in the case of ghe BSE cgisis we eid mndeed find it possible bj hemi witk vhe great econokic probleks created by TSD. Yut, Mr President-in-Office, we found thq resoutcfs to do so onjy bj eakihg them from other lines, in other sords fermers in other EU countries were deprivef so that we could helo Great Brijzin'f livestock bfeeders. It was right tk help them, but not to the cost of ocher breedets og farmers in our bountries. For that redson, I nelieve that tmis rxserce of 1 billion ECU - iv is a reserve today, it is fos che needs of agricultyrw, Mr Kresigent-kb-Ofwict, aid se are homding it ih reserve - xould be used withim eye scope of tge EAGDF to create a fund under the control not of the Commission but the Council, which would he used ig cases such as BSE and other agricultural disastars ii xll tme Ejeooean Union's countries.

Patijn
I understand the trduxt of the honourcble member's argimfny, but I hope sfe will afree with me that ae have to avide by a numner of premises. Firstly, wherher you agrve wuth this or not, whzn drawing u' the nudgey in the Council we wory vedy strictly within tgd agreed financixl iers[ective and the budget ceijing. If yiu axk for x latge sum to be hivfd ofn for a general conhingeucy raserve, thah means that when the budget is drawn up that sgm fill of uecesslty be unavailafle for legitikate, przdictacle budgetzry speiding. The cues will be endgred afresh. Bnt what hwppebs iw that dkth a budget og some 70 bpljion ECU you find in tme coorae of the year ckau yere and there thd ftnfs awa not fully gsed up, snd tfese can thcn ce uxed to cope with spewial unforeseen emergemcles like jhe BSE cwisis. I do noy regard it as sopjistirated uudgetsry policy to set aside very largs contignfncn amounts whish dlrecjly reduce che expenditure items which have prioritb and which are predicjable.

President
As the cuuhor is not pcesent, Question No 6 lapses. Question No 7 by Jonas Sjösuedt (H-0057/97):
Subject: The consesuencev for Norway and Iceland of integrating Schengen
The current IGC is discussing rhe invedration of fhe Xchenceu Ayreemene in XU law. Negotiatioms are also in progress on Scheigen assochace status for Norway and Icelsna.
What effect dould integrating Schengsn in thr
third countries. So the three lines you not to my You also said, of BSE crisis we indeed find it to help with the great economic created by BSE. But, Mr President-in-Office, we found the resources to do so by taking them from other lines, in other words farmers in other EU were so we help Great Britain's livestock breeders. It was right to help them, but not to the cost other breeders or farmers in our countries. For reason, I believe that reserve of 1 billion ECU it a reserve it for needs of agriculture, President-in-Office, and we are holding it in reserve - could be used within the scope of the to create under the not the but the Council, be used in cases such as agricultural disasters in all the European Union's countries. I understand thrust of the honourable member's argument, I hope she will agree with me that have to abide by a number of premises. Firstly, whether you agree with this or drawing up the budget the Council we very within agreed perspective and budget ceiling. If you ask for a large sum to be off for a general contingency reserve, that means that when is up that sum of necessity be unavailable legitimate, budgetary spending. The cuts entered But that a of some 70 billion you find in the course the year that here not fully used up, and these can then used to cope with special unforeseen emergencies the BSE crisis. I do not regard it as sophisticated budgetary policy set aside contignency amounts which directly reduce the expenditure items have priority and which predictable. President As the author is not present, Question 6 Question No by Jonas Sjöstedt Subject: The consequences Norway and Iceland Schengen The IGC discussing the Schengen Agreement in EU law. are in progress on Schengen associate for Iceland. What effect would integrating Schengen in the
 third countries. So the three lInes you menTioneD arE noT rElevAnt tO my question.
You ALso sAid, however, that in the casE of thE Bse criSIs We did Indeed fINd IT PosSiBlE to HeLP wIth thE grEat econOmic probleMs cReAted by BSE. But, mR PResident-in-offIce, we found thE reSourceS tO do SO only By tAking Them frOM other Lines, in otHeR Words fARmers in OTHeR EU cOuntries were depriVEd SO that we could heLp GreaT BRItAIN's lIveStock breedErS. It waS Right to HElP THEm, bUT not to the cost Of other breeDErs Or farmErS in OUr counTries. foR ThaT reason, I belIeve That this rEserve OF 1 billioN eCU - it is A reserVe tOdaY, it iS FoR tHe nEeDS of AGrIcuLTurE, Mr PresiDeNt-In-OffIce, aND WE Are hOldIng iT in reServe - could be uSed WithIN thE scopE of thE EAGgF To creAte a fuNd undEr The control not of The COmmission But ThE CoUnCil, whICh woulD be UseD in caseS such as bsE aNd OTHEr Agricultural disastErS IN aLl the EurOpean UNIoN's COuntries.

paTijN
I unDERstanD the THrUst of the HonourABlE mEmber's aRgUment, bUt i hoPe sHe wilL AgreE with mE that we hAve to ABide by a number oF Premises. FirstLY, wHEThER you AgrEe with this oR not, WHen dRawiNG uP thE BudgeT in thE COUnCIl we work very strictlY wIthin tHe agrEed financial pErspective AND The budgeT ceiLInG. if you ask for a laRge suM to be hived OFf for a geNeral ContingeNcy reservE, THat means ThaT whEn tHe bUDGeT is drawn up thaT SUm wiLl Of necesSitY be unavAilAblE foR leGiTimate, preDictable BuDgEtArY spEndinG. the cuts wIlL be EnTerEd afrESh. But wHat haPpenS iS tHAt wIth a budGEt OF Some 70 BiLlIon EcU yOu Find iN the COurSe of the Year that hEre ANd thErE tHe funds Are not fully usEd Up, and these CaN thEn be usED To cope wiTh special unforeseen emerGEncies lIke The BSe criSis. I do not RegArd it aS soPHisticAted buDgetaRy PolICY to seT ASiDe vErY large contIGNenCy amoUnTs whIch direCtly reduce the expenDItuRe items which hAve PrioRITy And WHiCH arE pREdiCTAble.

President
As The author iS nOT pResent, QuesTIon no 6 Lapses. QUestion no 7 by JONas SjösTedt (H-0057/97):
SubjEct: The conSeQuenCES foR Norway and iceland oF integratINg SchENgEn
The CurRent IGc iS diScussIng the INteGratiOn of thE SChengeN AgreEmEnt in EU lAw. Negotiations are also in ProgreSs on SCheNgen assocIatE StaTus for NorWay aNd Iceland.
WHat EffEct woUld INtegrAtinG scHenGEn in tHe
 third countries. So the t hree lines  youmen tio ne d ar e no t relevant tom y qu estion.
You also said,  howe ve r , th a tin th e caseo ft h e B SE  c ris is we  didind eed fin d it possi ble  t o help witht he  great eco nom ic problemscre ated b yBSE .  But,  Mr  Pres ident- i n-Offi ce, we fo un d  the r e sources t odo s o only by takingt he m  from other li nes, i no th e r  wo rds  farmers i nother EU coun t ri e s wer e  deprived sothat we cou l d h elp Gr ea t B r itain' s liv es t ock  breeders.It w as rightto hel p  them,b ut notto the  co stof o t he rbre ed e rso rfar m ers  in ourco un tries . Fo r t h at r eas on,I bel ieve that thi s r eser v e o f 1 b illio n EC U- itis a r eserv etoday, it is fo r th e needs o f a gr icu lt ure,M r Pres ide nt- in-Offi ce, and wear e h ol ding it in reserve  - c ou ld be us ed wit h in  t h e scopeof  th e EA G G F tocrea t ea fund u nder t h eco ntrol n ot  of th eCom mis sionb ut t he Cou ncil, wh ich w o uld be used in cases such as BS E an d  oth eragricultura l di s aste rs i n  a llt he Eu ropea nU ni o n's countries.

Pat ij n
I un derst and the thrus t of the h o n o urable m embe r 's argument, butI hop e she will agree wi th me  that we  have toa b ide by a  nu mbe r o f p r e mi ses. Firstly, w heth er  you ag ree  with t his  or  no t,wh en drawin g up the  b ud ge tinthe C o uncil we  w ork  v ery  stri c tly wi thintheag re e d f inancia l  p e r spec ti ve  and  th ebudge t ce i lin g. If y ou ask fo r a larg esu m to be  hived off fo ra generalco nti ngency r eserve,that means that when th e  budget  is  draw n up  that sum  wi ll ofnec e ssitybe una vaila bl e f o r  legi t i ma te,  p redictable b udg etary  s pend ing. Th e cuts will be ent e red  afresh. Butwha t ha p p en s i s  t h atwi t h a b udget of some 7 0 billionEC U  y ou find in the  c ourse o f the y ear t h at here  and ther e the fun ds  are n otfully used  up, and  these ca n  then be  used  to  copewi thspeci al unf o res een e mergen ci es lik e the  B SE crisi s. I do not regard it a s soph istic ate d budgeta ryp oli cy to set  asi de very la rge  co ntign enc y  amou ntsw hi chd irect ly r e duce thee xp end i t ur e items whi c h hav e pri ori t y andwhic h are predictable . 

President
As  the a uth ori s no tpresent, Quest ion  N o 6 lapses .Question No  7 by Jo na s  Sjös tedt ( H-0057 /97):
S u b je c t: The  con seq uences fo r N or w ay andIc el a nd ofinte gr atingScheng e n
Th e current IGC is d iscus s i ng th e  in tegra ti on of t h e Sc hengen Agr eement in E U law.  Neg otiat ions ar ealso i n p ro gress on S c hengen as socia te stat us  for  No rway a nd I c e land. 
Wha teff ect would i nt e gr at i ngSche ngenin  the 
 third_countries. So_the three lines you_mentioned are_not_relevant to_my_question.
You also said,_however, that in_the case of the_BSE crisis we_did_indeed find it possible to help with the great economic problems created by BSE._But,_Mr President-in-Office,_we_found_the resources to do so_only by taking them from_other lines,_in other words farmers in other EU countries_were_deprived so that_we could help Great Britain's livestock breeders. It was_right to help them, but not_to the cost_of_other_breeders or farmers in_our countries. For that reason, I_believe that this reserve of 1_billion ECU - it is a reserve_today, it is for the needs_of agriculture, Mr President-in-Office, and_we are_holding it in reserve -_could be used_within the_scope of the_EAGGF to create a fund under_the control not_of the Commission but the Council,_which_would be used_in_cases_such as_BSE and other_agricultural_disasters in_all_the European Union's countries.

Patijn
I understand the_thrust_of the honourable member's argument, but I_hope she will agree_with_me that we have_to abide by a number_of premises. Firstly, whether you agree_with this_or not,_when drawing up the budget in the Council we work very_strictly within the agreed financial perspective_and the budget ceiling._If you_ask_for a large_sum_to be_hived off for a general contingency reserve,_that means_that when the budget is drawn_up that sum will_of_necessity be unavailable for legitimate, predictable_budgetary spending. The cuts will be_entered afresh. But what happens_is_that_with a budget of some_70 billion ECU you find in_the course of_the year that here and there the_funds_are not fully used up, and_these_can then be used to cope_with_special_unforeseen emergencies like the BSE_crisis. I do not regard it_as sophisticated budgetary policy to set aside very large_contignency amounts which_directly reduce the expenditure items_which_have_priority and which are predictable.

President
As the author is not present,_Question No_6 lapses. Question_No 7 by Jonas Sjöstedt (H-0057/97):
Subject: The consequences for Norway_and Iceland of integrating Schengen
The current IGC_is discussing the integration of the Schengen Agreement in EU law._Negotiations are also in progress on Schengen associate_status for Norway and Iceland.
What effect would_integrating Schengen in the