Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.5.2-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, firstly I would like to express my thanks for the presence of the Council and the Commission. I see that both institutions are represented here by a very large staff. I have been allocated five minutes in which to speak. When I look at the budget before us, this means that I can speak for about three seconds on each billion euros of expenditure. That is not very long, so I will have to restrict myself to the main issues.
Firstly, I am pleased that the Council has said – and Mr Terry Wynn has also emphasised – that 2004 is a crucial year. It is the first year of the enlargement and we must do everything we can to make the enlargement a success. Now that the last referendum in the ten new countries has taken place in Latvia, we know for certain that ten new countries will be joining on 1 May next year. We must immediately make them feel at home and that they are welcome. Mr President, you and Mr Böge have been given an important role in working out the budgetary envelopes for the codecision programmes. I think that it is of vital importance that we reach agreement on this before November of this year.
There are signs of recession all over Europe at the moment. I think that we must try to develop more economic activity. I myself have high expectations of the initiative, which is even mentioned in the directives, to further develop the small- and medium-sized enterprise sector by way of guarantee facilities, via banks in Eastern Europe. If Parliament approves this, I hope that the Council will take a more favourable stance despite its policy of not changing the allocations for the ten new Member States from what was agreed in Copenhagen. This side may submit amendments asking for more attention to be paid to certain developments in the new Member States.
Now the budget in general. It has already been said once or twice before; we want to be a responsible Parliament when it comes to expenditure. Unnecessary expenditure is something we do not need. As far as I am concerned, we should hold each item of expenditure up to the light to see whether the expense in question is justified or not. Last year’s expenditure pattern will play a particularly important role in this. I think that this is especially important, now that there is strict budgetary discipline in all Member States.
It has been said once or twice before, but the Iraq question casts a shadow over Heading 4 of the budget. What do we do about Iraq? I think that the Commission must come up with a very clear proposal and must indicate clearly why it thinks a specific amount is necessary and how it intends to finance it. I do not only mean certain amounts that are going directly from the Commission to Iraq. Would the Commission be able to look into what other facilities there may be at some stage? Could there be a role in the long term for the European Investment Bank to encourage businesses to invest in Iraq? Could there be a role for the European Investment Fund and other businesses of this kind? I understand that change is not possible from one day to the next, but perhaps the Commission could make a statement about this. We will have to try to finance this mainly from the 2004 budget, but I think – I do not know – it is going to be close in that area.
What role does the Commission envisage for the flexibility instrument, and what is realistic in the attempt to reach agreement with the Council? Perhaps the Council can say something about this. One point that affects the whole budget is that it has been customary over the years for Parliament to include certain amounts in the budget for preparatory activities, trials and so on, and that the Commission was then free not to implement them. Other actions that were also proposed in the budget were not financed by the Commission. We want to try to avoid this state of affairs this year. We should therefore put certain amounts of money in the reserve and only release them if we have the impression that the Commission – in other words the budget authority – is taking Parliament’s decisions seriously.
A lot of discussion will also be needed on the Commission’s human resources policy. The Council has announced that it does not agree with the Commission’s proposals regarding additional human resources. Parliament’s position is not yet clear, but it might be possible for us to put specific items in the reserve and only release them once the Commission has met certain conditions. One of the interesting things this year is that this is this Commission’s final year. In this case it is often customary to give various people in the Cabinet of Commissioners attractive positions in the Commission administration, the practice known as ‘parachuting’. We would like the Commission to give us an overview of the promotion policy over the past few years and the plans they have in this area this year.
My last point; may I say how impressed I am with the good cooperation with the Council, the rapporteurs of the various committees and the Commission itself thus far. I hope that this good cooperation will last until December."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples