Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-16-Speech-3-352"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010516.13.3-352"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the challenge to the Commission in drawing up the draft preliminary budget for 2002 was to provide financial cover for next year's long-term obligations, provide financial cover for next year's new and special priorities and cover the financial risks to the budget as the result of the BSE crisis and the foot-and-mouth crisis all within the framework of financial planning, i.e. while exercising budgetary prudence.
Commitment appropriations have been increased by a total of 4.1% for internal policies. This undercuts the ceilings decided in Berlin and in the Interinstitutional Agreement, leaving a margin of EUR 68 million. Briefly, the most important points in this category are: over EUR 4 billion for research and development and EUR 112 million for information and communications and various information campaigns. Funds have been earmarked for the new food authority and the two new air safety and maritime safety agencies.
For justice and home affairs – which as one of the priorities decided by Parliament in the guidelines for the budget 2002 also deserves comment – a total of EUR 81 million has been estimated for a variety of measures, especially for the European refugee fund, measures to combat violence against women and children and immigration policy measures.
Provision has been made to reduce budget resources for external policies because the Commission does not propose using the flexibility instrument in this area again next year. Nonetheless, funding for policy in the Balkans can be kept at almost the same level as this year. The very large sum of EUR 863 million has also been earmarked for the MEDA programme. I should point out once again here that we have taken pains to propose a very large increase in payment appropriations for this programme, in order to respond to justified criticism that a lot of promises were made in the foreign affairs area but that implementation is sometimes only very patchy, i.e. the programmes are not implemented. The Commission's proposal – I am addressing this now because it was addressed in discussions yesterday with the Committee on Budgets – would mean that the backlog in heading 4 on foreign policies would fall from 3.3 years to 2.8 years. To put it more clearly, if you calculate how many years are needed to clear the backlog of current payment obligations, it was 3.3 years at the end of 2000. I think that, if we can reduce this to 2.8 years, that is already something. But I must stress that this calls for appropriate administrative effort and also assumes that the means of payment will be available to achieve this.
I should like briefly to mention one point which I also addressed yesterday, namely the problem which has arisen because the fisheries agreement with Morocco has fallen through. We now have to think what needs to be done in order to restructure the Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets affected by the fact that the agreement has fallen through.
The budget contains an estimated EUR 3.3 billion in pre-accession aid, in line with the financial perspectives. The same applies here as to other external policies, i.e. provision has been made for a substantial increase in the means of payment so that the programmes really can be implemented on the ground. This should ensure that pre-accession aid is taken up to a greater extent in order to carry out the reforms needed with a view to enlarging the European Union.
Under the Commission proposal, administrative expenditure will account for 1.5% of next year's overall budget. The Commission will be asking the budgetary authority to approve the second tranche of the additional posts needed for Commission work out of the 317 posts for the Commission. The Commission has also tabled proposals in its budget which are important for the purpose of enlargement, such as posts for codifying legal texts.
I am anticipating the debate on the Buitenweg report. You in turn stress how important it is for the purpose of enlargement to debate heading 5 straight away. Initial measures will be needed next year. We must also keep an eye on what is in store under heading 5 as the result of enlargement. I would stress here once again that the overall margin in heading 5 is tiny. Taking the proposals already made by the other institutions, the Council and Parliament alike, I have to concede that this will probably mean that the ceiling on heading 5 will be exceeded. This indicates the need for good cooperation in this area if we are to remain below the ceiling.
To summarise, I think that consultations on the budget 2002 will be no easy task, in other words, good cooperation will be needed. I can say quite clearly that, I for my part look forward to working with you on the budget 2002.
I think that we have succeeded in this in the preliminary draft which the Commission adopted on 8 May. I should like to make a few brief comments on the basic figures in this preliminary draft budget.
The preliminary draft budget totals around EUR 100.3 billion, i.e. we have crossed the EUR 100 billion mark for the first time. This represents an increase of 3.5% in commitment appropriations compared with this year's budget and an increase of 4.8% in payments or, in absolute terms, EUR 97.8 billion. As far as commitment appropriations are concerned, we still have a EUR 500 million margin in comparison with the contributions set out in the financial perspectives and, as far as payment appropriations are concerned, we are EUR 2.5 billion below the ceiling. I think that these figures alone prove that the budgetary discipline decided by the Commission is geared to the principle of budgetary prudence.
The average increase in the plans announced by the Member States for the next budgetary year is around 3.8%. Even if we compare the EU budget to the Member States' budgets, we can demonstrate that we too are within these limits.
Expressed as a percentage of European GNP, the Commission's proposed budget represents 1.06%, i.e. it is below what we debated for the current budgetary year about a year ago. This is due mainly to the fact that growth rates in the European Union are relatively high and satisfactory.
I should like to comment briefly on the individual areas, starting with what is still the biggest individual area, namely agricultural policy, although I shall not go into the olive oil sector in detail now, because we have already covered that. The Commission proposal makes provision for an overall increase of 5% in the agricultural budget, a big jump which naturally requires explanation. The explanation is that this is the third year in which the reforms decided under Agenda 2000 need to be funded. These reforms entailed an increase in expenditure.
The second point is that the Commission proposes – and I am certain that we have Parliament's support here – to include in the budget the full estimate for heading 1B, rural development, as proposed in the financial perspectives. However, the most important and the hardest task of all was to deal with the unknown quantities caused by the BSE crisis and the foot-and-mouth crisis. The Commission proposal makes provision for an additional EUR 1.145 billion to deal with the BSE crisis in the organisation of the market in beef and veal for 2002. This is the amount needed in order to fund the seven-point plan proposed by the Commission.
We also propose EUR 250 million under veterinary measures in the budget 2002 in order to deal with the foot-and-mouth crisis, although I should point out that this sum will not be enough. Obviously, I need to explain this. Hopefully we shall be able, when the time comes, to fund some of the refunds to the Member States for the foot-and-mouth crisis this year, i.e. out of the budget 2001. It is important that the Commission's preliminary draft budget makes provision for a reserve of EUR 1 billion for 2002, which is earmarked for any further measures needed to deal with the BSE crisis and the foot-and-mouth crisis. We really must cover the risks properly here. That gives a below-the-line margin of EUR 365 million in the agricultural budget.
A brief word on Structural Fund resources: the estimates proposed for the Structural Funds run to a total of EUR 33.6 billion. That is a very large sum, but that is what was decided by the budgetary authority in the new financial perspectives. I also quote this figure so as to indicate once again that this is the most important instrument, the most important instrument financially for combating unemployment. It is the European Union's contribution to regional policy, one very basic objective of which is to combat unemployment. This contribution is often taken for granted by the Member States and no longer seen for what it is, i.e. the European Union's contribution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples