Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-05-Speech-2-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991005.5.2-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the Members, firstly, for their analysis of the problem and, secondly, for their generally positive reaction to the proposal which is being examined here today.
We come to the second point, which is the second Amendment, which intends to establish budgetary control by the Commission with regard to the funds in question. Given the difference between these funds and the normal projects which supply money to the budget, I am afraid that, in this case, this idea of budgetary control, which we all accept and defend, is not really applicable. In this case, the control must be carried out differently. We should control in general terms whether the country is using the funds correctly. Consequently, we would be in favour of an idea which seems to us fundamental, and that is that the Commission monitors the reforms which must be carried out in the said countries so that the aid may be used correctly.
However, we do not believe that this point should be included in the text of the decision. The Commission is committed to carrying out this control and it should be done, obviously, in accordance with the evolution of macro-economic factors. We believe that this type of control will be sufficient. However, as I have said, we do not believe that including the proposed amendment is the best method.
With regard to Amendment No 3, the fundamental idea, as has been said, is to try to ensure that a proportion of these resources is dedicated to the provision of the basic social needs of the population. This raises once again the problem that I mentioned before concerning the nature of this aid. If we were talking about budgetary aid I would have no hesitation whatsoever in accepting your proposal. In this case we are talking about financial support for these countries’ reserves in order to help them deal with a certain type of counterpart. We are not here to discuss whether or not we should support the basic needs of the population. Nevertheless, for your peace of mind, I will tell you that these cases are radically different from the case you have mentioned concerning Indonesia.
Also with regard to the International Monetary Fund’s own plan, in the Fund’s global plan concerning the definition of budgets and expenditure of the said countries, it is clearly established that a certain percentage of expenditure will have to be dedicated to social spending.
In the specific case of Romania for example – I have the figures here – at the moment, for 1997, 8.3% of GDP is being spent on social expenditure. However the condition established in the Fund’s plan states that in 1999, this figure should rise to 10.5% of GDP. Therefore, I hope that this addresses the Honourable Members’ concerns regarding the issues involving the International Monetary Fund. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it falls to the Commission to define internally, with regard to national budgets, how a global budget is to be established given that, as I said before, the Funds in question do not themselves have any particular specific purpose.
We could clearly say the same of Amendment No 4, which has a similar justification and problems of an analogous nature.
With regard to Amendment No 3, however, I would like to make an additional point. There are specific Union programmes dedicated to this idea of improving administration and dealing with basic social needs. Please remember, for example, that in the PHARE programme, 30% of the resources are dedicated to “Institutional Building”, which is clearly linked to the whole question of improving administrative functioning which will allow the problems to be resolved. These are the reasons why Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 do not seem acceptable to us.
However, we are in total agreement with Amendment No 5. To Amendment No 5, we would simply propose a small correction in terms of style and that is, instead of the phrase appearing after the reference to the International Monetary Fund, we believe it should appear immediately after the word “Commission”. Therefore it would be worded, “the Commission, in accordance with the principles of sound and efficient management, shall verify…”, etc. In this way we would totally accept your proposal but it would be more correctly worded.
In Amendment No 6, the Commission is asked to inform Parliament before carrying out the second payment of balance of payment appropriations. Again this raises a problem of form and practice. The problem is as follows: decisions of this type are based on elements which must be treated, I would not say as secrets, but at least, with a degree of confidentiality and that, therefore, it would not be appropriate, it seems to me, to explain them and discuss them in sessions which are absolutely public and on record. Therefore, the problem stems from how we will find a procedure which will inform Parliament of these facts before they happen without involving a public meeting which I believe could cause certain problems with regard to the handling of these issues.
The formula which I would now propose, and which I can commit myself to, is that, before these payments are made, the Chairmen of the Committees involved in these issues, for example, should be informed, so that Parliament has knowledge of them and there is no problem with regard to the need for confidentiality in relation to certain matters.
I would also like, in my first appearance before this Parliament, to insist once again on something that I insisted on in the Commission, which is the need to establish the best possible relationship between my duties as Commissioner and the people responsible for the corresponding areas in this Parliament.
We are in total agreement with Amendment No 7 concerning the provision of information before a certain date.
Lastly, we come to perhaps the most problematic amendment, in terms of the form it should take, which is the one concerning the additional loan of 30 million. The Honourable Members raise budgetary problems and, insofar as this is a contribution of a budgetary nature, they will have to be resolved. The resolution you propose involves a revision of the Financial Perspective.
I would like to distinguish between the two time periods. Firstly 1999 and then 2000. We are talking about EUR 30 million – 15 for this year and 15 for next year. With regard to the 15 million for this year, I can tell you that the figures are laid out in the budget and therefore, we have no problem with meeting these payments immediately. The problem concerns next year and, in fact, in the Commission’s decision, if the Honourable Members would like to see page 7, in section 4 which refers to this issue, it clearly states that, given the existing budgetary restrictions, there could be some difficulty and an adjustment in Category 4.
This is clearly not a new problem therefore. It is a problem that has been noted and you are right to raise it now. The difficulty is which solution to adopt. Should we adopt a specific solution consisting of revising, by means of a specific Council decision, the Financial Perspective with regard to a specific point? We believe that this would cause difficulty in terms of budgetary authority and analysing the issues individually, in such a way that we are not able to have a global view of the difficulties which we may have to face.
Therefore, I would ask you not to include this reference to the revision of the Financial Perspective bearing in mind two things: firstly, that the Commission will clearly in any event consider revising the Financial Perspective in the future, taking into account not only this question but also other matters relating to Kosovo. Secondly, that logically it will fall to the budgetary authorities, to you as Parliament, to the Commission in its proposals and to the Council in its decisions, to take the decisions which it considers appropriate for 2000 without, at the moment, anticipating the definitive solution.
I believe that the various interventions have shown that there is no group which, in principle, will stand in the way of aid. In fact I have noticed a position which is clearly favourable to the proposals. We all agree that the crisis in Kosovo, which has given rise to this difficulty, leaves us no choice but to make a greater effort. However, I would like to clarify certain issues which may help us to understand the Commission’s position with regard to the different proposed amendments.
Firstly, we are talking about balance of payments aid. Balance of payments aid is very different from the provision of funds for normal programmes. Balance of payments aid is aimed at boosting a country’s reserves in such a way that it can confront its external payments problems, which always have a compensation: it is always either the provision of services or the supply of goods which is being paid for. Therefore we are not talking about funds directed at the budgets of each one of these countries, the aim of which would be to carry out specific actions. Clearly, and as a consequence of this fact, they are connected neither to specific projects or programmes. We are talking about a financial contribution aimed at confronting these difficulties.
Secondly, in the case of Bulgaria and Romania, the funds are connected to agreements with the International Monetary Fund which have this same objective. In the case of FYROM, the situation is rather different. That country is currently negotiating an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. It is possible that agreements will be reached, in which case we will cooperate with them, but, in the event that no agreement is reached, we believe that the situation demands the support of the European Union in any event. Therefore, whether or not there is an agreement with the International Monetary Fund, there will be support for FYROM, although it must clearly be conditional upon the application of the necessary reform programme so that these funds will be put to specific effective use.
I would like to remind you that this is not the first time that this type of aid has been granted to these countries. It has happened in the past. This aid has always functioned efficiently. We have never had problems with regard to the repayment of debts, there have never been delays on the part of these countries, and therefore, from our point of view, and in financial terms, they are absolutely viable partners.
Having made these preliminary comments, I would like to deal with the various proposals put forward by Mr Martin in his report. In view of the philosophy that I have explained, I believe that our position is understandable.
With regard to the first proposal, if I have understood correctly, the intention is something which I share completely with Mr Martin and that is that, ultimately, growth and economic reform should increase employment and improve standards of living. In these two respects, we are in absolute agreement.
Therefore, we would accept a wording which, in place of what has been put forward in the proposal, said “with a view to increasing employment and living standards.” This wording would be perfectly acceptable to the Commission."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples