Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.5.2-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Many thanks, Mr President. I can tell you that the result we now have regarding the budget, following the vote in the Committee on Budgets, very much resembles the budget guidelines that we adopted at the start of this year. What have the main issues been up to now from the point of view of Parliament? We want to make a success of the integration of the new Member States into the European Union. Enlargement must succeed, and that is why we have been saying right from the outset that the 25 countries must be dealt with in a single budget. Secondly, we have been saying that we want to do something about stimulating economic growth, in not only the new, but also the existing, Member States. I shall come back to that later. We have taken an important initiative as regards the development of SMEs in the new, and also in the existing, Member States. The third point is that we have to facilitate the integration of the new Member States with the existing ones as much as possible.
Finally, we are all familiar with the Eurostat problems. We have put 25% of the funds for Eurostat in the reserve pending the final report, which we anticipate towards the end of October.
There has also been a great deal of discussion on Chapter 4: the external policies of the EU. The situation in Iraq predominates here. We are of the opinion that something must be done in Iraq. We have entered a provision of EUR 30 million in the budget, and we are aware that the Commission has proposed the sum of EUR 200 million, EUR 40 million of which, in all probability, will be paid out of the 2003 budget and EUR 160 million of which out of the 2004 budget, possibly using the flexibility instrument.
In addition, the Committee on Budgets has adopted an amendment that envisages making EUR 500 million available for Iraq. We shall be voting on this next Thursday. The prevailing view is that, whichever programme is brought in for Iraq, it must not be at the expense of the existing programmes in Chapter 4: namely Afghanistan, the fight against poverty and so on. We are also of the opinion that all the aid to Iraq must be given under the auspices of the United Nations.
A further point regarding the Common Foreign and Security Policy is that EUR 5 million of the sum earmarked by the Council has been put in the reserve. We want a vigorous dialogue with the Council about the agreement that we recently concluded regarding the provision of information. We are aware that the Council may want a little more in this sphere. We shall pay this due attention in Parliament, but, first and foremost, we think that, if agreements are concluded with the Council, they must be carried out faithfully. We still have some doubts about this at the moment.
I should like to discuss one last point in connection with the budget, namely administrative expenditure. The Commission requested additional staff, but this has only been half-honoured by the Council. Parliament takes a different view. First of all, we think that the Commission could well do with that staff, in principle. Before we say a definitive ‘yes’, however, we attach a number of conditions: the ones set out in the budgetary resolutions and in the resolution by Parliament itself. I can give you some examples: the number of vacant posts in the Commission must not exceed 4%, the new posts are to be allocated exclusively to citizens of the new Member States, the Commissioners must respect the code of conduct that they agreed at the beginning of their term of office – particularly with regard to ‘parachutage’, as we always call it – and, last but not least, the Commission must, in our opinion, give its full attention to the implementation of the budget. That last point still leaves something to be desired, however, especially regarding the pilot projects and the preparatory actions. We shall keep a close eye on this.
Finally, I should like to thank my fellow MEPs, the Council and the Commission on this occasion, too, for the pleasant cooperation I have enjoyed up to now. I have tried to achieve a consensus as far as possible, as befits a rapporteur, and I hope that this cooperation may continue in future, too.
As has already been said several times in earlier debates, this 2004 budget has a number of particular features. We are to present a budget for 25 countries now, when we all know that we shall not have a European Union of 25 Member States until 1 May next year. Hence, we shall be voting in December on a budget for 15 countries, with a technical annex for the ten new Member States. We shall then vote on a supplementary budget for those ten new Member States during next year. Another new feature of the 2004 budget is activity-based budgeting. We have discovered some more flaws in this, which we hope it will be possible to rectify in the course of this year. Particularly important as far as Parliament is concerned is that we are able to look into the extent to which the programmes are being implemented and what kind of evaluation techniques are available.
By and large, we have voted in favour of an economical budget. The payment appropriations have been increased, including other payment appropriations, but, on the whole, I think that this result is suitable for presentation, even at a time when the whole of Europe is economising.
I should like to say another thing about the various chapters of the budget; firstly, the agricultural budget, Chapter 1. We are of course awaiting the letter of amendment, which is due to be issued shortly. We hope that Parliament’s initiatives, which are reaffirmed in this budget and which were also put forward in earlier resolutions, will also appear in the Commission’s letter of amendment, to be issued shortly: namely the pilot projects, or preparatory actions, regarding the environmental indicators, funding for animal diseases, the development of better vaccines and the development of a quality policy for agricultural products. It will also undoubtedly become clear then what impact the more expensive euro has had on agricultural policy. In addition, the Committee on Budgets has voted in favour of a number of further points: we want more research into animal welfare, and we want more alternatives to tobacco-growing in the EU, among other things.
As regards Chapter 2, the Structural Funds, we have increased payment appropriations in line with the figure the Council considered reasonable. We did this for two reasons. Firstly, the Member States think that they can spend a great deal more than the Commission proposes each year, and we wanted to accommodate the Member States. Secondly, we are concerned about the slow pace of implementation of structural policy. We think that increasing the payment appropriations will enable us to make improvements there. I hear you saying ‘Is it appropriate to increase the payment appropriations at this time?’ If we look at the amount of the increases in payment appropriations in previous years, I think that this is actually a very modest increase in comparison.
Regarding Chapter 3, internal policies, we consider the promotion of SMEs in the new Member States to be the most important initiative. It is possible to do this with a relatively small amount of money. With EUR 33 million more than in the Council’s budget, and with an attendant multiplier effect of the order of 20 to 30, we can provide SMEs in Eastern Europe with a good deal more guarantees that they will be able to develop. At the same time, we shall tag a training programme for bank managers on to it.
The chapter on internal policies contains another reduction in relation to the Commission, but an increase in relation to the Council, in respect of measures to be taken in connection with the ever increasing marine pollution. There is the European Maritime Agency, which of course has to do its work, but we have found it necessary to limit the appropriations proposed by the Commission, since there is no legal basis as yet. We hope that that will be put in place this year, however.
This year, we also paid a great deal of attention to the agencies. More and more of these are appearing; and even newer ones are on their way. We want better parliamentary control over these agencies. This control over their work programme will be entrusted to the parliamentary committees, and even Parliament itself. We also want to pay more attention to the organigram of the agencies, in the same way as we take an interest in the organigram of the Commission itself. This is not a difficult thing to require of the agencies. We hope that we shall be able to find a solution to this for the second reading.
A few more points need to be mentioned in connection with Chapter 3. In our opinion, the Council must take a decision as soon as possible regarding the seat of the agencies. Great uncertainty will reign until this has been taken. We believe that VAT fraud must be further investigated. The Info-Points Europe are a matter of great concern for Parliament. Owing to the new Financial Regulation, there is a possibility that some of these Info-Points will go bankrupt – will have to close their doors – and this whilst virtually everyone in Parliament is convinced that they play a very useful role."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples