Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.5.2-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your welcome. It is with no little emotion that I stand before you for the very first time in this magnificent hemicycle, which is laden with so much meaning. I am honoured to be participating in this part-session of the European Parliament, which will examine – and I am sure adopt at first reading – the Community budget for 2001. This is a unique opportunity for me in more ways than one, as Florence Parly, the French Secretary of State for the budget and chairman of the French budget committee, is unable to be here today. She has asked me to send you her apologies and to speak on her behalf.
I would now like to swiftly describe the way the Council voted on each budget heading.
Concerning the CAP, or heading 1, the significant 6.3 % increase in appropriations is the result, as I have said, of the Berlin Agreements reforming the CAP. The Council brought the appropriations envisaged for 2001 down to below the level provided for by the Commission, which had envisaged a 7.6 % increase, due among other things to the habitual under-implementation recorded every year in the field of agricultural expenditure. There was an under-implementation of EUR 660 million in 1999.
I would like to point out that the increase in expenditure on the common agricultural policy enables us to offset the fall in the agricultural prices for the benefit of consumers. I am actively involved in agricultural programmes in France and am therefore in a position to appreciate the efforts that you have made in coming to this agreement and honouring the commitments that farmers throughout Europe want to see. The reform of the CAP will also enable us to enhance the standing of European agriculture within the scope of WTO rules. In the long term, this reform will enable us to contain agricultural costs more effectively.
Concerning the cutback of EUR 225 million in the field of rural development, the Council’s position is a response to the cumulative lags in national rural development plans. The Commission acknowledges these lags and there can be no doubt that they will have major repercussions on the implementation of appropriations in 2001. Expenditure under this heading has nevertheless been increased by 4.6 %, reflecting the fact that this second pillar of the CAP constitutes a priority.
Concerning structural operations, overall, the amount set aside for these in the 2000 budget has been maintained. I would remind you that the 2000 budget provided for a very high level of structural funding. Within this category of expenditure, however, the Council has adjusted the balance in favour of the Cohesion Fund: giving the Cohesion Fund an extra EUR 360 million over and above the preliminary draft budget, which has been taken away from the Structural Fund, as a result of the implementation estimates submitted by the Member States.
On the subject of internal policies, the Council has increased the margin set by the Commission for heading 3. The Commission proposed a margin of EUR 137 million below the ceiling, but the Council has upped this to EUR 208 million. The Council is not trying to vote through additional cutbacks, but rather to allow for a sufficient margin of appropriations with a view to the adoption, between now and the time the budget goes to second reading, of amounts that cover the Council and Parliament’s shared priorities, such as the employment initiative, to which you are firmly committed.
Concerning large-scale multiannual programmes such as the FRDP, the Framework Research and Development Programme, the Council has respected the appropriation schedules approved by Parliament.
With reference to external actions, or heading 4, the Council has adopted a budget that conforms to the European Union’s overall priorities, including that of aid for the Western Balkans, which is one of its undisputed priorities. The Council nevertheless considers that this awarding of priority should not lead the EU institutions to discard the principles of effective and credible intervention: a requirements analysis, the tailoring of aid levels and arrangements to fit the nature of these requirements, and a fair division of contributions from all the bilateral and multilateral aid donors. The Council has not deemed it desirable to take up the programming proposed by the Commission, either in the proposal for a framework regulation or in its preliminary draft budget for 2001.
The Council considers that an allocation of EUR 614 million, which translates as a very major increase of 30% over 2000 should cover the needs of this priority, particularly since aid arrangements are set to change from emergency aid, which is by definition for rapid use, to more structural forms of aid, the commitment of which is generally more complex. This outlay makes the European Union the leading contributor to the reconstruction of the Western Balkans. I would point out that this expenditure forms part of the overall body of aid granted by the various other donors and financial institutions.
The MEDA programme and the Euro-Mediterranean partnership as a whole quite clearly also remain a priority for the Union. The EUR 150 million cut in commitment appropriations proposed by the Council in no way casts doubt on this.
The examination of the budget is an important aspect of parliamentary life. The budget is also of major importance to the governments and citizens of Europe since it sets out Europe’s broad guidelines for action in 2001. In Brussels last week I was able to see for myself the high level of consultation within the trialogue, and so now I am here today. I would like to say that this budget procedure has been conducted in an excellent atmosphere so far. The meetings that we have, in more than one instance, held together, proved to be beneficial and enabled a better mutual understanding of our respective priorities.
In fact, the level of commitment appropriations for the MEDA programme is not an issue, since the delay in payments under this programme now runs to over eight years, as Commissioner Patten has stated. The Council’s main concern, therefore, is to improve the way that this programme is managed. An increase in the actual payments made under the MEDA programme and the implementation of projects in the field will depend on just such an improvement. An agreement has been reached within the Council and with the Commission concerning the arrangements for managing this programme. All that remains to be determined is the multiannual amount. However, I am anxious to stress that MEDA is only one facet of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, which also comprises other measures and which calls for reciprocal efforts to be made by the partners. The improvement and development of this partnership also numbers among the priorities of this Presidency of the Council.
Concerning heading 5, the rationale adopted by the Council consists of stabilising current expenditure at the level of inflation while also granting supplementary funds for exceptional expenditure by the institutions.
Regarding the Commission’s letter of amendment which proposes, as has just been mentioned, the creation of 500 new posts in 2001, the Council has voted through the creation of 400 new posts. In approving the Commission’s proposal, the Council wanted to make a connection with the internal restructuring that the Commission is carrying out in accordance with the White Paper. However, the Council does not intend to issue the Commission with a blank cheque, since the arrangements for early retirement and the creation of posts in the years to come are yet to ratified. We must hold further discussions on this subject with Parliament after the first reading is complete.
Concerning pre-accession, heading 7, the increase in appropriations under this heading is the highest for any of the headings in the draft budget for 2001, at almost 11%. This reflects the fact that this category of expenditure constitutes a priority for the Council, as well as for Parliament and the Commission.
Before you reach your decision on this draft budget, I would like to emphasise that the Council and Parliament share a number of objectives on which agreement could well be reached by our two arms of the budgetary authority. I will give you two examples: amounts outstanding and financing of aid for the Balkans.
These two issues often feature in discussions between Parliament and the Council and if we are not careful could well generate tensions between the two arms of the budgetary authority. I am nevertheless convinced that, although Parliament and the Council would seem to take different approaches to these issues, they actually have common objectives and interests which could see agreement being reached.
First of all, the amounts outstanding. This term is used to describe appropriations that were committed during previous financial years but which have not yet been paid out. This means that there is quite a time-lag between the authorisation to commit the expenditure and actual payment, which is quite natural in the case of infrastructure financing and multiannual programmes in particular. Amounts outstanding have nevertheless risen to such a high level that the reasons for this have to be sought elsewhere. One response, the one that your Committee on Budgets suggests that you adopt, consists of saying that the high level of amounts outstanding can be ascribed to a shortfall in payment appropriations. The solution would thus be to significantly increase the level of payment appropriations in order to pay all the commitments outstanding. This solution is doubtless well-intentioned, but would be ineffectual. The Community Budget does not need any more payment appropriations. The Community Budget has never suffered from a payments crisis, as is proved by the fact that the every year the Commission records a high level of unutilised appropriations. In 1999, appropriations totalling EUR 2.2 billion were not utilised, and in 1998 this figure stood at almost 3 billion ecus. Raising the level of payment appropriations by more than the 3.5% decided by the Council would in no way help to reduce the RAL.
Such an increase would be meaningless, since you have the appropriations available. The solution to the high level of amount outstanding actually lies in adopting a different approach. What we in fact need is to more efficiently tailor the sum total of commitment appropriations voted through to real needs and to the capabilities of beneficiaries to absorb and utilise these appropriations, an improvement in programme management, as we have proposed regarding the MEDA programme, and revision of the commitment system within the ambit of the reform of the Financial Regulation.
I would like this House to take these comments into consideration. It would in fact be pointless to vote through a significant increase in payment appropriations. This would also run contrary to the goal of an efficient Community Budget being pursued by the Commission, the Council and Parliament. What we really need are joint discussions on the causes of the high level of amounts outstanding and on the means of rectifying the situation.
I now come to aid for the Balkans. Due to the recent, very welcome changes in Serbia, this is now one of the Union’s priorities in the field of external relations. It is also a priority of the Council and Parliament, which have just reached agreement on an emergency aid package worth EUR 200 million. I think I can safely say that the Union was efficient in its financing of all the requirements connected with the Balkans in the year 2000, as the Community Budget enabled us to swiftly respond, among other things, to the acceleration in the timetable for reconstruction in Kosovo.
This partnership between the Council and Parliament on budgetary matters should be developed further. I hope that the budget discussions can continue in the same vein so that we can come up with a budget for the financial year 2001 that equips us with the resources to meet the priorities and challenges that await the European Union.
Concerning the forthcoming programming of heading 4 of the Budget, the Council wants to see a serious assessment of requirements being performed with a view to validating, or invalidating, the political valuation of the CARDS programme. Inasmuch as this is possible, the Council is keen to base the level of multiannual global budgetary funding, including that granted under the 2001 Budget for reconstruction in the Balkans, on a technical needs analysis.
I will now turn to an important question and the topic of many behind-the-scenes conversations at Parliament and in the Commission. Will we have to revise the financial perspective in order to be able to come to the aid of the Balkans? This question was also asked in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999. I sometimes hear it said that the Council is so committed to the Berlin financial perspective that it will not even hear talk of a possible revision. That is not the question being asked. Others say that the Commission and Parliament see the revision as having a symbolic value in respect of the Balkans and as proving, moreover, that the Berlin financial perspective is inadequate. This to me is also taking an extreme view.
The Council is taking a calm approach to the revision of the financial perspective. It is committed to the provisions of the Interinstitutional Agreement as a whole, which comprise the financial perspective and the possibility of its revision. However, I would simply like to say that three steps must be taken before any revision of the financial perspective. The first is the assessment of needs, the second an examination of the margins available within the framework of the existing ceilings, and the third the possible use of budgetary tools that can be harnessed prior to any revision, such as that of flexibility. At this stage the Council does not see the revision of the financial perspective as being a prerequisite for financing reconstruction in the Balkans.
In conclusion, I hope that we do not see the financial perspective taking on a symbolic value that it does not have. The Council will spare no effort to meet the needs of the Balkans, not least by granting significant funding under the budget. The budgetary resources that the European Union allocate to the Western Balkans will have a symbolic value, but not as a result of the financial perspective having been revised or not. This matter must not be used for the purposes of a publicity campaign. If aid to the Balkans can be provided within the framework of the financial perspective, then the main thing is for it to quite simply be provided.
Following this brief overview, I would like to state once again that the Council is anxious to continue working in close cooperation with Parliament, as it has done from the very start of the budget procedure. The draft budget already incorporates the many results of the consultations between the Council and Parliament. Discussions will now continue between your institution and the Council and the Commission. I hope that these extensive discussions will enable the 2001 budget to be a sound budget.
You are called on today to decide on a budget that has already been amended at first reading by the Council. I would therefore like to quickly remind you the broad guidelines that the Council wanted to give to the 2001 budget. I would also like to emphasise the Council and Parliament’s common objectives, which will in my opinion enable these two arms of the budgetary authority to arrive at an agreement.
On 20 July, the Council adopted a draft budget that marked a 2.8% increase in commitment appropriations and a 3.5% increase in payment appropriations compared with the budget for 2000. In growing by 3.5% for the year 2001, the draft Community budget is being increased by a far greater margin than the Member States are permitting themselves for their national budgets. This increase is also far above the inflation rate forecast by the Commission for 2001 of plus 1.8%, which shows how committed the Council is to financing European Union policies.
This draft budget constitutes a balanced and realistic compromise. The Council did not opt for a tactical first reading, which would have consisted of adopting a hard-line stance on stabilising Community public expenditure and resulted in contentious budget negotiations with Parliament. I view this as an outmoded approach. The Council voted through, at the first reading, the appropriations that it felt to be justified for 2001, without taking into consideration any tactical concerns would only work against the objective of the sound allocation of appropriations, which is the objective that the Community institutions must pursue.
The Council’s draft budget enables the financing of all the European Union’s policies and priorities to be reconciled without imposing an excessive burden on the Member States, who I would remind you are currently in the process of bringing their own public expenditure under control. In identifying margins for manoeuvre, notably as regards the ceiling set for heading 3 and heading 4, it is also been the Council’s intention to let Parliament, which has the final say on non-compulsory expenditure, set out its priorities without calling into question the Council’s priorities. So I would simply like to stress the salient points of the Council’s draft budget.
First of all, the draft budget provides for priority aid to the Balkans, which will receive 30% more funding than in 2000. The EUR 614 million that the Council have voted through will enable us to finance all the foreseeable requirements, and include an initial aid package to Serbia totalling EUR 40 million. The Council has shown that the granting of significantly higher amounts to the Balkan region was in fact possible without a revision of the financial perspective. Furthermore, the Council shares Parliament’s view that the revision proposed by the Commission cannot be envisaged concerning another issue, namely that of expenditure on agricultural markets. The Council has stressed that there can be no tampering with the ceiling on CAP expenditure.
Secondly, the financing of all the Union’s other public expenditure priorities is accounted for by the common agricultural policy, for which funding has been increased by 6.3 % with a view to financing the reform of the CAP. Structural measures have been stabilised at a very high level. All the programmes that have been adopted jointly by the Council and Parliament conform to the programming that they decided upon together. I am keen to point out that the ‘employment’ initiative constitutes a priority not only for Parliament but also for the Council, following on from the conclusions of the Feira European Council. We must, of course, first wait for the Commission’s assessment, but will do our utmost to reach an agreement with Parliament at second reading within the context of a more general compromise on the budget as a whole."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples