Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-23-Speech-2-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011023.7.2-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, you have once again pushed the boat out with this long conclusion, but perhaps I can once again try to finish my speech in less than ten minutes, and then the balance will be redressed after all.
A second subject on which I should like to ask the Council to adopt a positive stance, quite apart from the annual budget discussion, is our request to consider how we want to give the taxpayer more value for money. During that trilogue too, Parliament talked in that context about setting up a political working party, which will enable us jointly to examine how we can give more value for money for, each year, we discuss the nuts and bolts and minor changes to the budget, but the institutions, once they are up and running, are not subject to thorough reviews as far as their objectives and working methods are concerned.
Despite this, we should have the courage to move away from the way things have developed and question, once again, whether all the institutions, for example, all the agencies, should continue to exist in that way. We are making a start this year at micro level by asking all the institutions to draw up a list of negative priorities. After all, we should not only add items to the European budget, we should also learn to scrap some of them.
Interinstitutional cooperation is another area where huge savings could be made. In this respect, I should like to make a concrete proposal. Since the Treaty of Nice, it has been mooted that the Council would need a new meeting place for its half-yearly summits. But the impact on the taxpayer and on the quality of life in the Leopold Quarter if yet another huge building were to be erected would be enormous. Let us therefore examine together whether some of the Council meetings could take place here in the parliamentary House, in Brussels or in Strasbourg.
Look around you, as you already are doing. It is a beautiful building, and you will understand that we would not mind if cooperation were to develop in such a way that Parliament were to meet in Brussels only, and we would be delighted to make this environment available to you. Until such time, and until the seat issue has been solved in another way, we really are stuck with two buildings that need to be altered to cope with a larger number of MEPs.
The Bureau has drawn up a three-year plan which serves as an indicative framework for expenses related to enlargement. The other institutions, too, are working hard to ensure that the effects of enlargement are ironed out, and we cannot wait for these adjustments until 2004. It is not an option for us to be in the middle of activities, still, when the first new Members join. This means, therefore, that more funding is required prior to the accession of the candidate countries.
The Committee on Budgets has noted that, by means of rigid budget management, it is possible, in the coming year, to remain within the self-imposed maximum of 20% in the category of administrative expenditure, although we have always said that enlargement and buildings do not fall within this maximum.
As for the subsequent years, however, I am not convinced that this will work again. Even if the other institutions implement their plans in preparation for enlargement, and even if Parliament faces higher costs because, by that stage, preparations will have got well and truly under way, in my opinion it will then be difficult to remain within the established ceiling.
Berlin in itself does not, therefore, merit unconditional praise. However, the intention to enlarge by spending tax money in an efficient, effective and desirable manner does merit such praise. Let it therefore be the guiding principle in the budgetary procedures which follow.
You will have gathered by now that I am greatly irritated by the Council’s stance, and despite this, I shall try to mention a few other elements from my report. I shall, first of all, focus on what it does not say. The report does not contain any judgment by Parliament of the basis on which expenses must be paid as soon as a new statute for Members has been approved, and that is something which I very much regret. Precisely because Parliament wishes to retain the power to decide on its own arrangements and does not therefore want expenses to form part of a package involving the Council, it is important for us to indicate at this stage what we want.
I should particularly like to ask the PSE and PPE-DE Groups to endorse the position which was initially included in my report, namely that, once the statute enters into force, only expenses actually incurred will be reimbursed.
This week, we are hoping to take a big step towards establishing the 2002 budget. I, as rapporteur, have worked towards this for the past couple of months, and I have received a great deal of support from the MEPs of the other groups, Mrs Gill, Mr Ferber, Mr Virrankoski and the other MEPs, as well as from the rapporteur for the general budget, Mr Costa Neves. I expressly want to thank them all here for their pleasant and also very fruitful cooperation.
I would like to mention something which
in the report. I am delighted that the institutions reacted in a quietly positive manner to the request by the Committee on Budgets to take part in EMAS, the EU’s Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. I should like to warmly congratulate the European Commission on the fact that it has already committed itself to this, and I hope that it will set an example for others, including the European Parliament itself.
There is still room for improvement on many levels, including in our House, for example with regard to differentiated waste processing and the use of environmentally-friendly materials, saving electricity and setting up a mobility plan for staff and Members alike. Parliament has a model role to fulfil, and this also applies to realising sound environmental objectives. I would be grateful if we were to make a start on that next year.
The trilogues involving the Council have also proved useful, and let me therefore count our blessings for once. From this year onwards, the Council budget contains a special chapter dealing with the common foreign and security policy. Since the Council now covers operational costs in its budget – which, unfortunately, do not fall within the remit of the Commission – such as for military planning capacity, it is necessary for democratic control to be possible. It is also important to gain a clear insight into the administrative structures which are being set up, so as to avoid overlapping with Parliament offices. That is not possible in a general Council budget if it is not clear how much is being spent on what and if Parliament does not give its opinion on those administrative expenses in general. We are therefore pleased with a separate chapter since, in this way, Parliament can try to gain some control.
Now that we have chosen this path, I hope that the Council will approve a number of rational and very logical requests by this Parliament at second reading too. For example, there is the issue of long and wild nights at the European Councils. In the midst of all this wheeling and dealing, do Heads of Government still consider the financial implications? I wonder about that.
During the meetings of the European Councils, the Dutch government is always equipped with a special calculator which closely monitors the implications for the Dutch contribution. But who is accountable for the impact on the European budget?
A pertinent example of this is the Nice Summit. In order to facilitate an agreement on vote weighting in the Council, compensating seats in the European Parliament were distributed lavishly. Who will pay for this?
The Treaty of Amsterdam stipulated a maximum of 700 seats; we are now sentenced to 732 seats and the buildings are not designed to cope with this number. In the short term, the number of MEPs could run well into the 800s, and I had better not hear a squeak from the Council when it is presented with the bill for this.
An example of a totally different nature is the Balkans. Whilst, in front of running cameras, billions were given for reconstruction with one hand, the Council took away development aid with the other. In order to avoid any repeats, it would be wise to add a financial picture to the political conclusions at important summits. How much is it all going to cost us and does it involve new money? It would be a sign of honesty if this were presented along with political conclusions.
For example, the situation in heading 5 has changed dramatically since the Berlin Agreement because, in those days, no consideration was given to, for example, developments in the second pillar, the common foreign and security policy, the third pillar, Eurojust, Europol, or expenses for the European data protection supervisor. I welcome these developments, but I would equally welcome an explanation as to where the funding is coming from and at what expense that funding will be granted."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples