Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991026.2.2-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, firstly, on behalf of my group I would like in particular to warmly thank the two general rapporteurs for the correct points of focus and the correct strategy which they have developed.
If in a public debate concerning budgetary reorganisation and savings measures we advocate a limited revision of the Financial Perspective, we are doing this as a Parliament with a clear conscience because in the past, we have always maintained that Parliament was able to responsibly set the necessary European political priorities whilst striving for greater efficiency and transparency in the budgetary procedure.
Of course, it is not a matter of financing new political needs simply by increasing funds. But, on the other hand, current development makes it clear that parts of the Berlin Agreement were not quite so prudent and forward-looking and that there is a need here for further improvement.
I would like to address the following comments to the Council and the Council Presidency: you do not need to remind us that we have a responsibility to the European taxpayer and that we too have a responsibility to exercise budgetary discipline. I would much prefer it if in the future the Council did its share of the homework rather better. It really was scandalous that the Council recommended to Parliament granting discharge of the budgets for 1996 and 1997 to the Commission. Since a major part of the Community budget is handled by the Member States, I would recommend that, in the interests of good housekeeping, the Council pay attention in this matter to efficiency, transparency and tidy implementation so that the Commission is not forced in future to repeatedly resort to the funds of the charging procedure. If this part of the job is done, then the Council can feel free to make new proposals to Parliament on how we should conduct ourselves in matters of budgetary procedure.
I am very grateful to Commissioner Schreyer that she opposed the figures. What was the preliminary draft? What proposals did the Council lay on the table? How is this to be assessed in connection with the ceilings on financial expenditure on which we jointly agreed? We certainly do not want to use up the margins which, in terms of the 1.27% of the gross national product of the Member States, now comprise EUR 9-10 billion. But I would also like to say very clearly that there are international commitments which we have undertaken towards developing countries, towards third countries, which cannot simply be cut across-the-board by 10%! That is visionless and politically indefensible. That is nothing but bookkeeping! The Council really should distance itself from this!
In this regard, I would also like to make clear that it is not just a matter of setting in motion the necessary priorities for external action, such as the reconstruction of Kosovo, but, so that it is reasonably organised and initiated, the Council must also meet Parliament halfway in the matter of how we should organise this aid and how the future reconstruction agency for Kosovo should really operate? I believe that here also the Council must compromise with Parliament.
The rapporteur correctly pinpointed the problems of the Technical Assistance Offices. We are prepared to give the Commission the necessary funds for administrative expenditure and the management of all these projects if in return Parliament is involved in the deliberations on reform. I believe that we can have good dialogue here.
I would also like to take up what my Mr Perry said: multiannual programmes such as SOCRATES and LIFE are indeed programmes which the citizens outside expect from us and here also we should provide the quality and the necessary funds as a contribution to European development, the European integration process.
The Commission has taken a first step towards Parliament in the form of the comments of Mrs Schreyer that we
should
strive for reallocation, the use of a smaller portion of the flexibility reserve and possibly an amendment to the Financial Perspective. This is a first step but, where cuts are concerned, there is an onus on the Commission and the Council to provide evidence line-by-line, whether it is genuinely the case that funds are not being drained away, or whether the intention is to block the politically desired priorities of Parliament. The onus is on you. Then we can have various debates. I believe that we still have a lot to do before December, before the second reading. Parliament is agreed: we need a limited revision of the Financial Perspective so that, unlike this year, we do not need to again crib our way through x number of different supplementary and amending budgets!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples