Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.5.2-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, budgetary policy always requires foresight, and today we are discussing Budget 2001, the budget for next year, and so together we must decide what demands there will be on European policy and the European budget next year, which we will need to fulfil, and what challenges we will face there. The European budget will be under considerable pressure next year. You only have to think of agricultural policy, where, for the first time, the Berlin Decisions will cost Europe more dearly. I might point out that, fortunately, we will at last be able to approve the programmes for promoting development in rural areas, in other words, this new programme will be fully up and running next year. We are in a similar situation as regards structural policy. The programmes for the new assistance period 2000-2006 have now been approved for practically all the Member States, and so we can expect, and also hope, that the first projects of the operational programmes can be implemented next year, which will require an appropriate level of funding to be made available in the budget.
The greatest challenge facing those responsible for budgetary policy, in the year to come, or rather, at the present moment, is that financing must be secured for new foreign policy tasks, and this mainly concerns the financing for the necessary stabilisation aid in the Balkans. I would remind you that the financial plan for the Balkans agreed last year only made provision for EUR 1.85 billion for the entire period up to 2006. This decision was taken under completely different conditions on the European policy front than we are now experiencing, I am glad to say, following the changeover of power in Belgrade.
I might also point out that last year, for instance, we had a long debate here with the Council, in connection with the reconstruction measures for Kosovo, on whether we stood any chance at all of putting in a good performance out there. Fortunately, the reconstruction agency has implemented the Kosovo reconstruction aid to extremely good effect, which means we are now in a position to be able to increase the appropriations for the reconstruction agency this year by EUR 175 million, and I would like to extend sincere thanks to the Committee on Budgets, and particularly the chairman, Mr Wynn, for supporting these measures in this way.
Above all, by increasing aid for Kosovo in this way, before the end of this year, it will be immediately apparent – and this is a very important political message to my mind – that the European Union does not take the view that because there has now been a changeover of power in Serbia, we should cut back on aid to Kosovo. No, we cannot have Kosovo fall victim to this a second time. On the contrary, we need to fulfil both tasks. The question of financial aid for Serbia next year and for subsequent years, is now on the table of course. The question as to whether the necessary measures can be carved from the previous package for the Mediterranean programme, is a political and not a technical issue.
EUR 8.1 billion were earmarked for the MEDA programme in the Berlin financial planning. If this were to be trimmed down to EUR 5 or 6 billion then it would not be possible to continue financing the same policies. Of course the question that needs to be answered is: what kind of policy do we want the European Union to pursue in our southerly neighbouring states? The Commission does not believe that all the reconstruction aid required for the Balkans should be carved out of the funds for the MEDA programme.
We have various instruments at our disposal for budgetary policy, in the event that unforeseen tasks should arise, or even additional requirements. They are known as the flexibility reserve. I have taken on board the fact that the Council believes there is willingness to negotiate. I am aware that Parliament is of the opinion that the flexibility reserve should be employed forthwith, in order to offset the cuts in the MEDA programme. To that I would say: the flexibility reserve is an instrument available to us for financing an unforeseen task in a particular year. The issue of Balkans aid does not come under this heading because it is a multiannual task.
We also have the negative reserve instrument available to us in the course of the budgetary procedure. Then there is the instrument whereby expenditure is increased in category IV, and there is a corresponding evening out across the whole budget. We also have the revision instrument, or rather the financial planning can be amended. Naturally, certain conditions are laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement, but it does not specify that the flexibility reserve has to be the first port of call. There is no mention of this, instead provision is made for certain steps to be taken. I can assure you that the Commission has taken these steps, and I would remind you that this is supposed to give us a clear idea of the kind of timeframe we are looking at. As to the question as to whether it will be possible to reallocate funds from agricultural policy, we will see that you get the latest forecasts on agricultural expenditure in the near future.
Of course revising the financial perspective is not an end in itself, rather, the Commission proposed this method with a view to financing the necessary expenditure in foreign policy, so as to do justice to the challenges we face. I would again urge you – the Commission is leaving your proposal on the table – to examine this proposal without bias and consider it as a possibility.
The European Union promised Serbia before the elections that in the event of a change in the balance of power, and a return to democracy, it would deliver emergency aid. We have given our word and we will all keep our word. The Commission submitted a proposal to activate the emergency reserve to this end, and put together an aid package. This aid package of EUR 200 million will enable us to take the necessary measures on the energy front, before the end of this year, in order to supply the people with the heating energy they need this winter, relieve the emergency situation that prevails in many areas of health care, and also ensure, for example, that the children do not sit freezing in their classrooms through the winter, by financing any necessary repair work here. These are the tasks that the aid package is designed to accomplish, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the European Parliament and the Council most sincerely for being so quick to support this proposal and for being prepared to take this decision so rapidly. I believe that in this way, the European Union has proved beyond all doubt that it is able to take very swift joint action, and that here too, there is evidence of a common will being translated into action, a common will to do our utmost to secure political stability – and that means peace – in Europe.
I would draw your attention to the challenge we face in the sphere of research policy for the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, in light of the fact that when they met in Lisbon, the Heads of State and Government set themselves the ambitious goal of making Europe the most competitive, knowledge-based economic area in the world, which also places demands on the European budget. On the enlargement front, there are new programmes for boosting pre-accession aid and reform. The deadline for enlargement is hopefully drawing closer, but of course this also means that pressure is building on the candidate states to undertake reforms, which is of course where the pre-accession aid comes in.
Most importantly of all – and this has been underlined repeatedly – we face new challenges in foreign policy, and, needless to say, also new opportunities to improve our relations with our neighbours, and particularly those in the Balkans, and to promote stability there. These are the huge challenges facing European policy, the budget, and the Commission’s administration, whose job it is to execute these tasks, and here too we need to boost resource levels.
We are also called upon to exercise budgetary discipline in our management of European finances. We must practise what we preach to the Member States, and it is bringing all these strands together that makes budgetary policy so exciting, as all those who are involved would testify.
This entails weighing up the various interests, negotiations between institutions, and we are now at the discussion stage of Budget 2001. That is to say, all the institutions – i.e. Parliament, the Council and the Commission with its preliminary draft budget – have put forward their first proposals and decisions on Budget 2001. If you look at these three different sets of figures, you will see that there are still considerable discrepancies, in purely quantitative terms but obviously as regards content too. I will just give you a brief illustration of this: the Commission has proposed an allocation of EUR 96.9 billion in the way of commitment appropriations, the Council has proposed EUR 95.9 billion, the European Parliament EUR 96.8 billion, and when it comes to payments there is a discrepancy between Parliament’s proposed figure and that of the Council, of almost EUR 2.2 billion. This means that quantitatively speaking, there is a relatively large gap to be bridged here. But I might also emphasise that the proposals, or rather, decisions of all three institutions in respect of Budget 2001, fall below the threshold set during the financial planning in Berlin. It is therefore quite fair to say that all the institutions have endeavoured to keep within these limits, and to maintain budgetary discipline.
I must point out that the Berlin Decisions would allow for a 6.1% increase in payments as compared with the previous year, and no decision proposes an increase on that scale. In other words, there is still plenty of room for negotiation, and anyone who attended the trialogue between Parliament, the Council and the Commission last week, will confirm that real efforts are being made to reach a satisfactory solution, and the atmosphere speaks of a genuine willingness to negotiate, rather than quarrel. I would like to take this opportunity to say a special word of thanks to Parliament and to the rapporteurs, Mrs Haug, Mr Ferber, Mrs Rühle and Mr Colom i Naval. I would also like to thank the Council, particularly for last Wednesday’s brilliant achievement – Mr Patria – in the trialogue.
The conciliation process which took place in the summer – Mr Colom i Naval made this point – had a positive outcome too, in that, in future, there will be an increase in the information made available to Parliament, and all new legislative proposals must be accompanied by an estimate of their compatibility with the financial forecasts. On behalf of the Commission, I can fully support your proposals, Mr Colom, because Parliament’s Committee on Budgets bears a weighty responsibility, and has the task of keeping an eye on whether the Committee on Budgets is indeed using these new instruments, so as to help ensure that financially viable decisions are taken. Nor should we have to contend with things of the kind that have gone on recently in the Council, for example when the agricultural ministers rejected a cost-cutting proposal from the Council, i.e. they voted for higher expenditure and then the Council of Finance Ministers reduced expenditure in the agricultural sector. I would therefore point out that the decisions taken must be backed up with adequate funding.
The reason for this of course, is that rather than add to the backlog, we must endeavour to reduce it, although this entails having the right human resources in place in the Commission. That is why the Commission decided to submit a request for 400 new posts with this budget. I would again draw your attention to the fact that we did not do so until we had conducted a critical survey of all the departments in order to assess whether there was still scope for redeploying staff, and only then did we reach the conclusion that we must approach the budgetary authority with a request for new posts.
I would like to thank the Council for their positive vote on this issue. Parliament has now placed the posts in reserve, and naturally I fully accept, Mrs Haug, that there are conditions attached to their release. However, I would you to take account of the fact that these must be conditions we can actually fulfil. One of the conditions imposed was that the comitology procedure must be changed. I would point out at this juncture that following a long debate last year, a new decision was taken on the comitology procedure, in conjunction with the Council, and I hold out little hope of us being able to reopen this debate. Exactly the same applies to the condition stipulating that provision must be made for a performance reserve as a matter of priority. If we want to improve – and that is our aim where the performance reserve is concerned – then of course we will need those posts. We will go to great lengths to explain to you what steps we have taken on the reform front, reform measures we have instigated, what initiatives are well underway, and what other plans we have in the pipeline, so as to demonstrate that the Commission, for its part, is pulling out all the stops. But I would also urge Parliament to be prepared to negotiate in these matters."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples