Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-14-Speech-2-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991214.5.2-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to present to you today the outcome of the second reading by the Council of the draft budget for 2000, which takes account of the amendments by the European Parliament. I would also like to take this opportunity to explain to you in more detail the Council’s proposal for financing aid to Kosovo in 2000. We know some of you still think that the financial perspectives for the period 2000 – 2006 are too tight and that the ceiling for category 4 is too low. We think, however, that the maximum figure is right for the year 2000, which is what we now have to decide on. For those unprecedented needs, which Kosovo has brought with it, the Council believes we can use an instrument of flexibility for the time being. We understand very well the concern Parliament feels about this year’s budgetary procedure. I believe, however, that our common goal is to give the people of Kosovo the aid they urgently require without any undue delay. Our common goal at the same time is to preserve aid for other recipients, above all the poorest countries in the world. For that reason, we have been inclined to refer to our original position to a large extent.
Then I would like to mention OLAF, the European Fraud Prevention Office, as an example of where interinstitutional cooperation can lead. The regulations and the whole legal framework in general for establishing OLAF, despite the complexity of the operation, became, thanks to the close cooperation between the Parliament and the Council, the first codecision procedure to reach a decision on one reading, and, in addition, in a record time of five months. In addition to this – also thanks to close cooperation between Parliament and the Council – additional budgets 4 and 5 were promptly adopted in 1999, and the letter of amendment 2 for the 2000 budget is now about to be adopted. All this will allow us to almost double the OLAF staff within a year. Finally, the European Parliament and the Council seem to have reached agreement today on a new OLAF director, as a result of which OLAF will become fully capable of fulfilling its functions.
We all know that the path of solitude, and the apparent freedom it offers, might seem more alluring sometimes than the obligations that cooperation imposes. However, we believe that through strategies of cooperation we can usually achieve better results for the Community as a whole and that they are more beneficial to each party involved than aggressive strategies. The Council is thus offering its cooperation as a means of financing aid to Kosovo and East Timor in 2000. This will mean the urgently needed substantial sums will go to Kosovo and East Timor without any unwarranted delays. This proposal means these needs will be financed entirely by means of the flexibility instrument as far as exceeding the current ceiling in the financial perspectives is concerned, without taking funds away from any other areas. The Council is also prepared for a solution where payment appropriations may be cut by EUR 2 billion by combining compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure. The Council has thus shown it is willing to accept the wishes of Parliament by adopting the new amendments, which are important to you, and by making this proposition concerning Kosovo and East Timor, in which we have tried very hard to take account of your concerns. The Council therefore hopes that the European Parliament will make its decision on the budget on the basis of the Council’s proposal.
One benefit of the new interinstitutional agreement is the opportunity it gives for an extended conciliation procedure, as a result of which Parliament has had many opportunities to set forth its views and, correspondingly, hear the views of others. We were often in touch with MEPs, especially Mr Wynn, Mr Bourlanges and Mr Colom i Naval in order to find a balanced solution to the issue of conciliation, which would make it possible for us to enjoy a stable economic policy in 2000, one which will help to preserve a good spirit of interinstitutional cooperation in the years to come as well. Now that these contacts have been established the Council is ready to fully adopt a flexibility clause. It is precisely in this way that an interinstitutional agreement offers the opportunity to adapt the financial perspectives in unexpected circumstances.
The Council is also prepared to adopt the recitals and statements, which are an essential part of the conciliation package and which leave scope for negotiation, which we will be entering into next year regarding category 4 financing, such as that which affects the Western Balkans. We do not think, however, that the ceiling for category 4 would need to be amended permanently, but rather by means of a flexibility instrument. The main reason for that is that Kosovo, which has fewer than two million inhabitants, can accept and use only a limited amount of aid properly, which is a lot less than what was originally anticipated.
The Council agrees with the European Parliament that appropriations, which are to be granted to Kosovo for the year 2000, are much less than what the Commission originally asked for. However, as the total needed for 2000 is relatively small, i.e. considerably less than the EUR 400 million from the budget, which in itself is worth a good EUR 90 billion or more, and because it has not yet been possible for the Commission to determine the requirements for every year after 2000, there is clearly no technical need at the moment for permanently amending the financial perspectives.
The Council also believes that the institutions of the European Union require a certain amount of stability and seriousness to maintain their credibility. Any breach of the agreement we sign or any adjustment made to it would immediately cause irrevocable damage to the Community’s external image and its reputation. We must show that we leaders of the European Union are engaged in serious work, that we take prudent decisions after they have been carefully planned and discussed, and that we keep to these decisions and our agreements afterwards.
I would now like to explain to you in slightly more detail what the Council’s proposal regarding category 4 contains and why it meets the demands of the European Parliament in terms of financing. The first benefit of the package the Council is proposing is that it offers ways and means to finance aid to Kosovo and East Timor in concrete terms, without it being at the expense of any other recipient of aid. I know that it goes against all the rules of rhetoric to mention figures, but at this stage I also have to do just that. We have proceeded in such a way as to establish the budget for 2000, and, unfortunately, the budget is simply about figures.
The European Parliament and the Council agree that EUR 360 million in aid should go to Kosovo in 2000. The Commission has told us that we could transfer EUR 60 million out of the budget funds for 1999, for use in 2000. This means that we have EUR 300 million in aid to Kosovo to charge to the 2000 budget. EUR 60 million from the Obnova programme and EUR 20 million from the ECHO programme was already included in your first reading, however, and that would be used for Kosovo in any case. We accept that EUR 40 million can in addition be used from transfers in 2000. We also know that the European Parliament wishes to grant EUR 20 million in aid to East Timor. 180 and 20 make 200. This is precisely the sum the Council proposed should be spent in connection with the flexibility instrument in addition to the ceiling allowed for category 4 in the financial perspectives. In other words the Council is proposing to pay for all these new funds itself, funds that are needed in their entirety for vital aid to Kosovo and East Timor in 2000, as far as exceeding the current ceiling in the financial perspectives is concerned. In this way, there would not be any need for the retargeting of appropriations or cuts in aid to other recipients. This was one of the wishes of the European Parliament, and the Council is proposing to fulfil this wish in its entirety.
Although the current aim is just to draft the budget for 2000, the Commission has already said in a statement published in the Official Journal of the European Communities regarding next year that it intends to propose an aid programme by April 2000 for the Western Balkans for the period 2000 – 2006 in connection with a proposal for an amendment to the financial perspectives. The European Parliament and the Council agree in another statement that such a multiannual programme should be drafted. At present such a programme has not been proposed, however. For that reason, we can for now only deal with the programme for 2000, which is urgent, and examine the Commission’s proposals next year, when they are known.
The Council has repeatedly said it considers cooperation with the European Parliament to be very important when the budget is being drafted. This has not been just an empty declaration, but it has also had practical consequences. The Council adopted, for example, almost all the European Parliament’s amendments relating to administrative expenditure, many of which concerned internal policies, which we know are of special interest to you. We likewise approved the sums that Parliament added to such programmes as Socrates, Leonardo, equality between women and men, Altener, Synergy, Life and all the action programmes in the areas of health and research, and many others. The Council also adopted the new policy for clearly determining the administrative costs of action programmes and monitoring offices concerned with technical assistance. This was also one of the priority aims of the European Parliament this year. The Council furthermore approved the increase of EUR 50 million in appropriations for food safety that Parliament held to be important."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples