Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-29-Speech-3-171"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000329.9.3-171"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to reflect the priorities of European policy in the budget of the European Union, that is the objective of this highly premature debate on the budget 2001. It is the first budget for which the new Commission has drawn up a preliminary draft budget and the first budget in which I, as a new Commissioner, shall be involved right from the outset. I think it is really useful that we already have a joint procedure between the European Parliament and the Commission, an understanding of which priorities require financial cover in the 2001 budgetary year.
The Commission came to the conclusion in the priorities debate for the budget 2001 that the funds needed cannot be found merely by redistributing foreign policy funds, although we have, of course, also considered where we can redeploy funds from the foreign policy area. My colleague, Chris Patten, took on this task together with Mr Nielson. However, we came to the conclusion that additional funds are needed which can be financed through other measures, which I shall come to in a moment.
I should like to stress at this point that the figure or estimate of EUR 5.5 billion for the period up to 2006 is being analysed, and rightly so. I should like to point out in this context that EUR 4.5 billion was channelled to the regions from the budget of the European Union between 1991 and 1999. If we now quote a figure of EUR 5.5 billion, of course that represents a considerable increase, but it is not an exorbitant increase and is in proportion to past assistance. I think we are all in agreement on the fact that, in comparison with the last decade, we must focus more strongly on financial assistance and financial aid for the regions.
I should like to comment now on the financing proposal, especially the point relating to redeploying funds from the agricultural policy area. This is a matter of particular concern to me insofar as anxieties may have been aroused in the debate here which, in my view, are not really justified. Mr Walter, you referred to this in your intervention: the point is not whether agricultural policy expenditure will be reduced in 2001 in comparison with the year 2000; the point is what increase is needed. According to the financial perspective, compared with the budget 2000, an increase of EUR 3.1 billion for agricultural market expenditure would be possible from a purely theoretical point of view, according to the figures. The Commission proposal makes provision for a further increase of EUR 2.8 billion for agricultural market expenditure. I would be obliged if you could take note of this and not say that we are letting a genie out of the bottle in the area of agricultural market policy which will then jeopardise all expenditure. I say again quite clearly, and the Commission also says, that direct income support for farmers will not be affected by the resolution; on the contrary, provision has been made for an overall increase in the order of over 7% for agricultural market expenditure and a really exorbitant increase of 9.5% for rural development. I hope that this will also be supported by the budgetary authority because I think that this rural development programme offers a great deal of scope for promoting new endeavours in agricultural policy.
Allow me to say a few words on the overall increase in the size of the budget. We have already had the opportunity to debate this twice in the Committee on Budgets. We shall doubtless need to engage in intensive debate with the Council as to the rate by which expenditure needs to be increased. I should like to point out here that a considerable increase is needed on the expenditure side simply in order to be able to honour old commitments made in the past which, of course, have to be paid for.
I should like to note, on the question of the financial perspective, that the Commission proposes, following the European Parliament’s petition and demand, to include expenditure for promoting Cyprus and Malta under enlargement expenditure in the future, i.e. under the heading of Category 7. I think this move would seriously improve the transparency of the budget and I hope that the Council will not stand by its initial rejection of this suggestion.
I should perhaps come back to the budgetary procedure for the budgetary year 2000. The budgetary procedure last year was extremely exciting, to put it diplomatically. I had a good opportunity to get to know you really well and found that the Committee on Budgets was a very robust committee with excellent staying powers. I assume that the Committee on Budgets of the European Parliament is resolved to take a very decisive position on the budget 2001, but that it is also prepared to negotiate from this very decisive position. However, I hope for all our sakes that the 2001 budgetary procedure will not necessarily put our endurance to the test once again and will be marked by greater consensus. I am also convinced that, should we come to blows again, the Committee on Budgets will demonstrate the same staying powers. I can assure you that the Commission will again be at your constant disposal so that we can achieve a positive result.
We are not yet at the stage of talking specific figures, not yet at the input stage; in fact what we are discussing now is the output. What do we want, what objectives do we want to achieve or support with this budget? In my opinion, setting the priorities like this is the best way of starting the debate on a budgetary year. I note in connection with the priorities being set for the next budgetary year that the reports, that the priorities which you are setting, tally closely with the priorities being set by the Commission. I think that this paves the way for bringing the budgetary procedure to a successful conclusion.
I should like in particular to thank the two rapporteurs on behalf of the Commission. I should like to comment on Mr Ferber’s report first and thank him for the support which he has expressed in his report for the Commission’s attempt to gradually convert the budgetary reporting procedure to activity based budgeting. The report suggests that the other institutions will also gradually follow this lead. Above all, the report expresses support for the Commission’s administrative reform and I should expressly like to thank the rapporteur for that. Of course, the Commission will be pleased if the other institutions are also called upon to consider, for their part, which administrative reforms would be advisable and which can be implemented.
Mr Ferber, you referred in your report to other problems which need to be resolved. I would like to single out the question of financing for political parties. I think that this is an issue on which we need to take joint action to find a speedy solution.
Now to Mrs Haug’s report. Mrs Haug, allow me to congratulate you on your report and on successfully concentrating on the priorities, because I can imagine that you must have received a lot of requests, a lot of letters to Santa, asking you to include everyone’s pet concern. You have concentrated instead on the real priorities and I think that is very valuable if we are to reach an understanding.
You laid particular emphasis on external policy tasks, which I shall come to in a moment. But you also stressed the importance of setting priorities and focal points for research – the Commission shares this view – and the fact that the development of a viable economy also needs to be fostered through budgetary endeavour. At this point, you have already debated this, I should like to comment on the results of the Lisbon Summit. I think that, on balance, the Lisbon Summit was a success for the European Union because everyone agreed that we now need to take huge steps to promote information and communications technologies and that considering how account can be taken of this priority in the budget should be a matter of common concern.
Mrs Haug, I should like in this context to welcome a statement which you made in your speech: you said that we do not want to compete with the Member States’ employment programmes; instead we want to consider what the special European dimension is in relation to each initiative, what can be specifically promoted at European level. I should like to comment on your question as to how great an effect the European budget has on employment. Of course, the programme financed by the Structural Funds is one of the most important instruments for promoting employment. We have again set a horizontal objective for the new period for the Structural Funds, requiring lists to be drawn up even during ex-ante evaluations, setting out and calculating how these special programmes will affect the labour market situation. I am also extremely pleased that my colleague, Mr Barnier, has said that the Commission will not be satisfied with woolly statements but wants specific calculations so that everything can be checked.
As far as the Commission’s priorities are concerned, I should like to point out that the Commission conducted the priorities debate at its meeting on 23 February where it came to the conclusion that particular account should be taken in the budget 2001 of the stronger foreign policy commitments of the European Union and of the important objectives of promoting rural development and supporting the transition to an information society.
I should like to comment specifically now on the question of the expenditure needed for the Stability Pact in the western Balkans. It was also the central theme of today’s debate. The Commission too has based its conclusions on the priorities for the budget 2001 on an estimated financing requirement in the order of EUR 5.5 billion for the period up to 2006. It has been pointed out on several sides that demands are being made on the Commission. You demanded this of the Commission and the Council in your resolution of 16 December. The Commission is being called upon to submit specific estimates of the funds needed in April and, at the same time, to state the extent to which the financial perspective needs to be reviewed."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples