Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.5.2-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, as we have heard, the 2004 budget will have some profound changes as a result of the historic enlargement due to take place in May 2004. My objective has been to balance the needs of the institutions so that they can fulfil their tasks and equip themselves to meet the challenges that will be presented by an EU of 25 Member States. At the same time, however, we must ensure that the principles of budgetary rigour and prudence are at the core of all our budgetary decisions.
The budget will present the other institutions with major challenges, because it will significantly change many of them. Some of the institutions will receive additional 50% increases in their budgets, which will lead to doubling or trebling of the staff within them. This will require sensitive and intensive management to absorb this change seamlessly. Therefore, I would like to start by welcoming the submission of the Third Report of the Secretaries-General on the evolution of Heading 5. This has become a useful tool for the decision-making process, and although we have an annual budgetary procedure, it is important to be aware of the likely multi-annual situation, so that the right strategic choices can be made, for example in buildings and staff policy.
I would like to remind everybody that we call upon the Commission and the other institutions that we have this annual report submitted to us by 1 September every year.
The Council's reading of the 2004 budget has been quite a surprise. I am totally perplexed by the Council's approach: there does not appear to be a clear strategy other than the doubling of the margin. On the one hand, the Council continues to apply an across-the-board approach, of which the Parliament has always been critical. In the past we have said that the Council made horizontal cuts in the institutions without looking into real needs. This has happened again this year on the Commission's budget. On the other hand, however, the Council has been surprisingly generous, to the extent that I have to question whether all requests that it has endorsed are well justified. This year it will be for the Parliament to ensure that the budgetary rigour is applied and a more critical examination of needs is undertaken. Therefore, I would like to ask the President-in-Office's opinion about the approach that I have taken on his decisions. We will be proposing to put money in reserve for two committees - about a million euro for each committee - and to cut back further posts in most of the other budgets.
My concern is that the Council has agreed to everything to do with enlargement, and enlargement should have resulted in greater economies of scale. I am a firm supporter of enlargement, but that does not mean that everything that is demanded is required. It is important that we do not have 'carte blanche' as regards enlargement and at the same time reject existing posts and existing staff policy issues - such as upgrading - which are important for the staff who are already working. We need to have a balance here.
I do not wish to go into detail on all of the Council's decisions, but I do want to ask about buildings, which is the second biggest item of expenditure after staff. I want to understand the Council's strategy.
We have always agreed on a policy of purchasing the premises of European institutions because it tends to give greater value for money to the European taxpayer, therefore we need to look at building expenditure, taking a multi-annual approach rather than a piecemeal approach, and to try to purchase the buildings as soon as possible. We know that the margin in Heading 5 will be under pressure from 2006 or 2007 onwards. However, we have a considerable margin in 2004. I was disappointed that the Council rejected my proposal to use this to finance buildings to cater for enlargement. This would lead to more savings, including savings for taxpayers. On buildings we do not need piecemeal solutions, we need to take a multi-annual strategic approach.
My next question is to the Commission. It is about the importance of the adoption of the new Staff Regulation. This issue has been dragging on for some time and it has implications for all institutions and for our staff. However, all the establishment plans in the budget pertain to the old Staff Regulation, so I call on the Commission today to confirm that it will propose an amending budget for the implementation of new Staff Regulations and what the likely timing of this may be, because next year, with the elections, the parliamentary calendar will be restricted.
Finally, I would like to call upon all the other institutions to take account of some of the changes and demands affecting them in the light of enlargement. They should start planning now and start introducing controls that are absolutely essential."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples