Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991026.2.2-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, the discussion of the budget for the year 2000 has progressed significantly since I presented the Council’s draft budget here in Parliament on 14 September. Today, I have heard detailed perspectives and justifications regarding the content of Budget 2000, with particular reference to the European Parliament. The Union appears to need diverse resources, and the most essential questions are gradually beginning to be resolved. With the new trialogue practice, we have been able to discuss many major problems in a positive spirit. The speeches that have been made here indicate clearly the main priority of Budget 2000. It stresses particularly the many current challenges presented by Category 4 on external action, which call for joint solutions by the budgetary authorities.
At the start, I emphasised the need for a swift response from the budgetary authorities in ever-changing circumstances. I believe that the new interinstitutional agreement also contains sufficient means to deal with unforeseen needs. The spirit of the new agreement is clear: we cannot right away rely on the new funds for aid that exceed the total sum in the financial framework. Let this also serve as a basis for adopting the budget for the year 2000.
I believe that, through sound cooperation among the institutions, we will successfully steer home the decision-making process with regard to the draft budget for 2000. I would like to thank the President and the Members of Parliament.
First, I will speak generally about the budget, on the basis of contributions from various quarters, and I shall return, at the end of my speech, to the Kosovo or Category 4 issue. First, I would like to comment on the compulsory agricultural expenditure, that is to say, Subsection B-1. The view of the Council is that the Commission’s proposal overestimates requirements for the year 2000. Therefore the Council in its own deliberations reduced this item by EUR 375 million. Overestimation by the Commission has been the regular practice throughout the 1990s. That was also shown in this year’s figures. The same can be said with regard to subsection B-1 on rural development action. In matters of appropriations relating to structural operations, the difference between the Council and Parliament concentrate on two areas: firstly, the size of the advance payment in respect of new structural operation payments, and, secondly, the timetable for attending to old, unpaid, committed funds. I believe that both matters are purely technical. Setting the advance payment at 3.5%, instead of the 4% proposed by the Commission does not require amendments to the legal effect measures. Neither does it in any way affect the total amount of new Structural Funds that Member States will be receiving over the period 2000-2001. As regards old, unpaid commitments, it is necessary to take account of the new spending criteria the Commission has just announced. In addition, we should note that the level of expenditure proposed by the Commission – 48% –clearly exceeds the 45% held to be the basis of the European Council’s own decisions at Berlin.
In internal policies, there are many problems that are presently being discussed in the codecision procedure. It is important that the budgetary authorities respect the ceilings for expenditure adopted in the interinstitutional agreement. This will require even more effective coordination.
There is significant pressure to develop administration in the Union. The new Commission has promised to issue a report on administrative development in February 2000. We can all agree that only on the basis of the Commission’s views can we comprehensively evaluate the need for human resources. As the OLAF commences its work, we should set great store by the qualitative aspects of this work. Regarding the importance of pension funds stressed by Parliament, we must also expect a comprehensive report from the Commission on, inter alia, reform of the acts on human resources, and other concrete proposals. Regarding the so-called BAT issue, or the issue of technical assistance offices, perhaps the time is not yet ripe to conduct such a laborious reform as Parliament is proposing in the budget for the year 2000.
Funding for action in Kosovo and in connection with other external relations will be a challenge for the Union in terms of budgetary procedure and financing. It is noteworthy that the direct financing needs of the Kosovo area are considered to be mainly covered. This was established at the first donor conference in July. The budgetary authorities should now wait for the final, reliable, assessment of needs, which, in my opinion, cannot be expected until next year. The Council, for its part, is committed to attending to the financing needs occasioned by the earthquake in Turkey with the help of a loan from the EIB, macro-financing aid, and the funds targeted at the MEDA programme. This being the case, perhaps there will be no need for a separate financing programme for Turkey. As for East Timor, aid has been channelled there via ECHO. The donor conference on East Timor is to be held in November, so more detailed assessments will be available only later.
As I mentioned earlier, Kosovo has become the main priority of the budgetary procedure for 2000. For this reason, the Council has demonstrated flexibility in its own procedures, resulting in a reallocation of appropriations in the draft budget for the reconstruction of Kosovo. It would seem appropriate to reallocate appropriations of humanitarian aid for Kosovo, especially as a large number of refugees have now returned to Kosovo, and to a certain extent humanitarian aid in Kosovo would seem to be the first step on the road to reconstruction, offering people at least shelter for the winter. For other budget headings that concern external action under Category 4 of the Financial Perspective, fixed-rate reductions for appropriations granted are a means of preventing hurried decisions to amend the excessiveness threshold of this Category. The reason, as I said, is that there do not yet exist any assessments of the genuine reconstruction requirements.
With regard to the concern expressed by Parliament regarding the possible consequences that might result from the reallocation of appropriations under Category 4 regarding Union aid for the least developed countries, we should not forget that, by virtue of the Lomé Convention, the European Development Fund channels EU aid to many of the countries in question. The European Development Fund is not included in the general budget for the European Union: the Member States contribute directly to it and it has its own internal financing rules. Thus, the reallocation of funds for the reconstruction of Kosovo did not affect the European Development Fund. Subsection B7 of the budget is only partly aimed at the poorest countries, and the fixed-rate reduction thus harms countries other than just the poorest. In the sitting of the Budget Committee on 16 July, the reallocation of appropriations for Kosovo was discussed, and it was stated that the Commission should not burden the least developed countries and poorest groups. Furthermore, we were reminded of the Commission’s commitment to an international development strategy, whose purpose it is to halve world poverty by the year 2015.
I have noted that the European Parliament also intends to propose appropriations that exceed the excessiveness threshold under Category 4 of the Financial Perspective, so that funds would be allocated to finance operations in East Timor and Turkey and to adopt the new fisheries agreement with Morocco. On this matter, I would like to make the following observations. The Council is also very worried about the situation in East Timor, but until now no precise assessments of the amount of aid needed there have been presented. The consequences of the Turkish earthquake have required our assistance already this year. This assistance was provided for in the supplementary and amending budget no. 4/1999. It is, however, too early to determine the total amount of aid appropriations required for the year 2000. Appropriations to fund action in Turkey and East Timor should also be found within the framework of the excessiveness threshold under Category 4 of the Financial Perspective determined at Berlin. The Council, furthermore, has accepted that the Commission be empowered to negotiate a fisheries agreement with Morocco. The outcome of these talks is not yet known. I might, however, remind everyone that, in adopting the draft budget, the Council has also reallocated some Category 4 appropriations in order to create a reserve for the funds required under the new agreement.
Finally, I will briefly comment on the overall increase in the budget and the frameworks for drafting it. On the basis of votes taken by Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, the payment appropriations would increase by over 6%. The corresponding figure in the Council’s draft budget is 2.8%. We have a responsibility to European taxpayers. It should be clear that Union expenditure should comply with the call for budgetary discipline and cost-effectiveness. The Union budget should observe the same degree of rigour as those of the Member States."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples