Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.5.2-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, allow me to begin by submitting apologies from the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Wynn, who was prevented from being here. He has asked me to speak on his behalf too.
So much for the procedure itself, which represents a positive development. Another positive aspect is the fact that there is broad agreement as to the basic political priorities. If the Commission’s basic priorities are compared with the guidelines adopted by Parliament, it can be seen that we are agreed on a range of points.
We are agreed that we must now put enlargement first. Enlargement, which is the most extensive we have ever undertaken, will most probably involve ten countries at the beginning of 2004. That is our most important task, and we must begin preparing for it as early as in the 2003 Budget.
We are also agreed that we must tackle the issues of security and safety in the broad senses of those words, partly by having a full discussion of how we are to manage security in Europe following the terrorist attacks of last September and partly through adopting a broader perspective on the safety issues – such as food safety and transport safety – on which a range of initiatives need to be taken no later than in next year’s budget.
We are also agreed upon a third area, namely the need for increased focus on sustainable development in economic, social and environmental terms, which is something that will require a range of initiatives on the part of the EU. We have been relatively ineffectual in this area so far, especially when it comes to implementing Parliament’s initiatives on the issues of small companies
learning and a range of other areas within which I believe we must really step up the pace.
Bearing in mind all those who believe that the EU budget is forever growing out of all proportion, it may also be noted, especially for educational purposes, that we now have a budget whose share of the Member States’ economies is decreasing.
Even though a number of basically positive signs can therefore be seen, a number of points should be noted that cause us to feel a certain anxiety. The first of these, and the one that overshadows everything else, involves the implementation of the budget.
We have a backlog of payments and other backlogs – what are termed
or total outstanding commitments – which only increase. As a reminder, I might mention the debate in the last part-session on supplementary budget number two for 2002 and the fact that the Member States are demanding EUR 10 billion back on the grounds that the EU has not been able to complete its tasks. In this connection, the Commission proposes a greater increase in payments than in new commitments, something which is naturally a step in the right direction.
We are nonetheless afraid that this measure is quite inadequate for getting to grips with the existing backlogs. Especially on the issue of the structural funds, from which we have to pay the money sooner or later, we are in danger of accumulating a mountain of unpaid budget items which will create major problems in the years to come, especially if these payments have to be made at the same time as we have major costs in connection with enlargement. The problem is of crucial importance and it needs to be discussed.
The other problem, which is also worrying and needs to be discussed, is the way in which enlargement is to be dealt with. Of most concern are the efforts which need to be made within the European institutions in order to prepare for enlargement itself. The costs of enlargement as such will not of course place a burden upon the 2003 Budget, but we must prepare ourselves right now, especially if ten new countries are to join as early as the beginning of 2004.
In this connection, the Commission proposes that we use the flexibility instrument to defray the increased administrative expenses. It is possible that we shall be forced to do this, but I believe we must increase the pressure on the Secretary-Generals to produce new, radical proposals, for example concerning increased cooperation between the institutions so as to reduce the costs and thus avoid having recourse to the flexibility instrument.
We both wish to express our thanks to Commissioner Schreyer and Director-General Gazon for their excellent cooperation. I believe that we shall benefit greatly from the spirit of cooperation we have enjoyed during the year, for there are a number of problems which need to be solved.
I believe that there are many new avenues open when it comes, for example, to the language regulations and the recruitment of new staff to the EU. We should seriously increase the pressure before we decide to use the flexibility instrument.
With regard to the security and safety issues – I earlier mentioned food and transport safety – we are also concerned about the incredible variety of new authorities or ‘bodies’. We have Eurojust, Europol and authorities for food, rail and air safety and so on.
These bodies do not in themselves present any problems, but they create problems in terms of budgeting and the ability to obtain an overview of the EU’s costs. They constitute a risk of our doubling our costs due to work’s being carried out in both the Commission and new authorities. They give rise to problems concerning methods of requiring accountability and maintaining scrutiny.
We must review these aspects in depth before we continue to extend the variety of new authorities, even though the tasks as such are certainly of exceptional importance.
A further point we need to discuss, and which the Commissioner too mentioned, is, naturally, foreign policy, for which the Commission proposes a budget margin of EUR 60 million.
It may sound a lot, but it is actually insufficient. We are faced with major situations of uncertainty, for example the continued development in the Middle East. We do not know what demands will be made upon the EU in terms of efforts in Palestine. We do not know in detail or with any certainty what demands will be made when it comes to Afghanistan or overall efforts at tackling poverty-related illnesses and so on. Nor do we know whether it will be acceptable to reduce our contributions within the CARDS programme in the Balkans at as fast a rate as the Commission is now proposing. In this area too, I believe we need a more extensive discussion and evaluation of the EU’s contributions before we take any decisions.
To all these uncertain factors, we can add the fisheries agreements within category 4 which, for a further year, will constitute an issue that we need to discuss.
In conclusion, I want to say something about the longer term future. Two of the absolutely most important budget problems we need to discuss certainly do not concern the 2003 Budget, but must nonetheless be addressed. These are the reform of agricultural and fisheries policy, on the one hand, and the real costs of enlargement, on the other. We shall later be receiving a special report on the subject from the Committee on Budgets.
Let us begin this discussion in time. Let us also try to retain the extraordinarily interesting cooperation and the common approach we have in relation to the exciting developments towards enlargement. I believe there would then in actual fact be high hopes of being able to find common solutions.
That is only an initial discussion of the preliminary draft budget. We shall be returning to the subject more than once, for example during the July part-session and on a number of occasions this autumn.
It is nonetheless important to make some introductory observations. First of all, there are a number of positive features I think there is good reason for looking at.
The first, concerning the draft budget for the year, is the improvement of the process itself. We are now finally on the way towards a system of activity-based budgeting and thus also towards a more lucid and transparent system that will make it easier to present the EU budget to people in Europe, something which I think is incredibly important if people are to have confidence in the European Union.
We are now taking the first step by using the old technique and the new ADB technique in parallel, something which constitutes major progress.
The second positive feature is that we have succeeded in achieving a better political dialogue. Through the Commission’s annual political strategy and through the fact that the Council and Parliament decide upon the political guidelines for next year’s budget at approximately the same time, we have brought about a political exchange, or dialogue, at an earlier stage. That is, in fact, progress. Certainly, there was a great deal of criticism in Parliament of the lack of factual content in the Commission’s annual political strategy, but I nonetheless believe that the method as such constitutes clear progress.
I also hope that we shall be able to renew Parliament’s own budget debate by holding a wider debate in July in which we do not only focus upon next year’s budget but also upon the implementation of the current year’s budget, as well as linking the processes together, which is something I believe is very important for the future.
I also want us to be able to have a proper and exciting budget debate this autumn, hopefully during the September part-session, in which we can also make a better link between the budget and the political initiatives in terms of legislation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples