Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.4.2-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union's Budget exists to finance its policies and its institutions. That sentence should be printed at the head of the financial part of the constitutional treaty that will be our future constitution, for it is self-evident that this should incorporate a financial constitution in the form of a chapter devoted to finances. That is indeed provided for in the outline of the constitutional draft on which the Convention is working.
The constitution's financial chapter should describe the whole of the Budget process in simple words and with unambiguous rules. It should therefore also refer to the implementation of the Budget and specify not only the Commission's responsibilities but also the Member States' obligation to cooperate. It should give a fixed place to the discharge for the Budget, and impose on the Community and the Member States the obligation of safeguarding the Community's finances against fraud. It should, with this in mind, at last enshrine the possibility of instituting the office of Public Prosecutor at Community level. The public expect Community assets to be able to be protected effectively and fraud to result in criminal prosecution.
The Convention now affords us the opportunity to establish new rules, appropriate to the Union's development, for the European Budget, which is an important Community instrument. This debate is being held just at the right moment, as the Convention is at this very moment working on the financial chapter; the Convention should adopt this important report by Parliament, and the Commission, in its proposals to it, will be putting forward clear principles and provisions that will, in particular, put the case for Parliament to enjoy full budgetary rights. Thank you for your attention.
The chapter on finance should specify the most important budgetary principles and lay down the principal instruments, principles and, above all, rules whereby decisions are to be reached, as regards both outgoings and receipts. The financial constitution would thereby lay down Parliament's budgetary rights. The Convention must come to treat this as a core point. A parliament's budgetary rights are a yardstick indicating the degree to which a system is democratic, and it is the Commission's opinion that the time has now come for the European Parliament to be accorded full budgetary rights.
I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Wynn, on the competence and extensive experience with which, as chairman of the Committee on Budgets, he has even-handedly set out the core points in his report and put forward proposals for the future constitution. I also congratulate him on his ability, so to speak, to wear three hats at once!
In Budget matters, Parliament and the Commission cooperate so closely that it is not surprising that a very large number of Parliament's proposals are identical with those put forward by the Commission or tend in the same direction. Among these is the principle that the Budget's receipts and expenditure should balance and that expenditure should not be allowed to be funded from credit. Another is the proposal that the multiannual financial perspective should be incorporated into the constitution as an instrument; the consequence of this would be that, in future, the multiannual financial perspective would no longer be founded on an agreement, but would become a law enacted jointly by Parliament and the Council on the Commission's initiative. Even when it comes to the proposal that the European Development Fund should in future be an integrated part of the Community Budget, there is complete agreement.
On the subject of the Community Budget's outgoings, let me also address an issue that has not yet been discussed in the Convention, but is on the agenda, and that is whether or not the future constitution – like the present Treaty – should exclude the possibility of military expenditure being borne by the Community Budget. Is there not much to be said for the idea that, where Petersberg tasks are undertaken jointly, the costs resulting from these joint operations should be borne by the Community Budget?
That the Community Budget should be funded from own resources is a firmly-embedded principle about which there is no debate, but does the present financial structure reflect the principles of transparency? Are our financial arrangements sufficiently autonomous; is it enough for Parliament to be able only to give an opinion on the own-resources resolution? The Commission's view on all these questions is that, no, what we have at present is not enough, and change is urgently needed.
When taking decisions on the own resources, it follows that the sensitivities of the Council and of the national parliaments must also be taken into account. Even so, the European Parliament should be accorded the right of codecision in this area too. The financial structure should reflect the fact that the EU is a union of Member States and of citizens. The Commission has therefore, in its proposal, advocated more direct involvement in financing the European Budget.
If I may turn to the Budget procedure, the Commission shares the position stated in Parliament's report, that the Budget procedure should be simplified and resources concentrated. The Commission should submit a draft to Parliament, and the first reading in Parliament should be followed by one reading in Council, followed by a consultation and the second reading in Parliament. If this procedure were to be adopted, the amendment of Council resolutions would require a super-qualified majority in Parliament.
There is also full agreement between the positions of Parliament and the Commission as regards the abolition of the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure, a distinction that could not, in any case, be made clearer to the public and justified to them. I really do hope that there will be absolute consensus in the Convention, and that this distinction and the consequent curtailment of Parliament's budgetary rights will become a thing of the past."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples