Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.9.3-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in 2002 the three European institutions worked together in order to draw up a new financial regulation, and this now gives us a clear framework for the subsidies by means of which we support a large number of excellent European organisations in the fields of culture, youth and education. From now on, any funding decision will have to derive its justification from a legal base. This obligation is imposed, in particular, on those subsidies which, up to now, have been financed from headings which, because of their position in the budgetary nomenclature, tended to be treated as administrative expenditure and so could be paid without a legal base. The changes in budgetary nomenclature introduced by the new financial regulation mean that such subsidies can no longer be treated as administrative expenditure and so the subsidies in question require a legal base. It was this new obligation which led the Commission, in the spring of this year, to submit seven proposals for new legal bases. Those seven proposals, covering seven different areas, were accompanied by a communication from Mrs Schreyer setting out the common context which justified their presentation and the essential elements used to ensure a similar response, between one proposal and another, to the common problems facing these sectors of activity.
Mr President, today’s vote is concerned with three of those seven legal bases. They need to be dealt with as a matter of urgency, particularly since the texts in question are being adopted by the codecision procedure. I am grateful to Mr Rocard for having realised just how urgent they are and for ensuring that the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which he chairs, was able to examine the Commission’s proposals rapidly. The switch from one budgetary approach to another may, however, cause serious financial difficulties, the consequences of which could prove to be drastic for the Europe of culture, youth and education if the joint legislators do not reach an agreement as soon as possible. The proposals which the Commission has submitted to you are aimed at ensuring a smooth and uninterrupted transition from the old system to the new one, and we have tried very hard to draft texts which broadly reproduce the 2003 detailed implementing rules, with the aim of ensuring that essential continuity and losing none of the advantages to be gained, in terms of the proper management of public funds by taking this new financial regulation into account.
From this point of view, the proposed legal bases should be perceived as a technical adjustment, though there is a strong temptation to take this opportunity to embellish them with innovations and improvements. In this case, however, the best is the enemy of the good, especially if those additions compromise the whole thing in the eyes of the Council. With this in mind, the Commission’s proposals are soberly worded, with the essential objective of preserving the
while giving it a legal structure which complies with the new financial regulation. I should like to ask you not to move too far away from the Commission’s proposals and to do everything to ensure that these legal bases can be adopted as quickly as possible.
In the case of the ‘culture’ legal base, there is even less scope for flexibility, because the Council has to take a unanimous decision, but we must retain some flexibility, not only on culture, but also on youth and on education, because it has to be said that these three areas are essential to the development of Europe. All possible means of reaching a compromise must be explored if they could enable us to bring these procedures to a speedy conclusion. With effect from 1 January 2004, in fact, if there are no legal bases, it will quite simply become impossible for us to give our financial support to all those bodies which contribute to the creative, cultural and intellectual vigour of Europe. In other words, an agreement at first reading is essential if those bodies are to be paid in January 2004.
In all three cases, the Commission’s proposal has followed the stipulations of the financial regulation, and it is on that basis that I should like to explain the Commission’s position on the amendments contained in the three reports. I should like to thank Mrs Iivari, Mrs Prets and Mrs Pack for the considerable amount of work that they have carried out on these measures, the vital nature of which they are well aware of. We note that the length of the programmes – five years for culture and education, and three years for youth – has met with mixed reactions. We willingly accept Amendment 16 on culture, which proposes to shorten the length of the proposed programme to three years if that will enable a rapprochement to be achieved between the various institutions involved, so that the proceedings can be completed. We reject, however, Amendment 8 on youth, and insist that 2006 should be the deadline, because by 2007 we would like to set up a new youth programme which will give preferential treatment to participation by European youth organisations. There is a link between the issues of duration and budget in all three cases. Amendment 17 on culture, which reduces the budget, would be acceptable if Amendment 16, reducing the duration of the programme, were adopted. Moreover, if the duration is not amended, Amendment 11 on youth, which proposes an increase in the budget, is acceptable in order to cope with the challenges posed by enlargement. On the education side, we can accept in part, or in spirit, a group of amendments, namely Amendments 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, which seek to amend, by making amendments as part of the 2004 budgetary process, the total amount of funding and the maximum and minimum percentages of that funding reserved for each activity in the programme.
According to the thinking behind the financial regulation, the long-term objective is to issue invitations, open to everyone, to submit proposals, with the famous ‘earmarking’, the method sometimes used now for allocating subsidies, being the exception. In order to facilitate the transition towards the approach contained in the financial regulation, the Commission has encouraged a mixed system, consisting of invitations to submit proposals and budgetary earmarking for Part 2 of the culture base. Therefore, we accept Amendment 18 on culture, but we are obliged to reject the culture Amendments 5, 15, 19, 20 and 23, which move too far away from the situation that we are trying to rectify. From this point of view, the criteria should be clear, or clarified further. We therefore agree with Amendment 10 on youth, but we disagree with Amendment 1 on culture, which strays too far away from the financial regulation in the way it redefines organisations pursuing aims of general European interest. In this respect, we cannot accept Amendment 5 on education, which is concerned with the International Federation of Europe Houses (FIME), and which seeks to add it to the list of bodies covered by Action 1, because, on the one hand, FIME plays the role of an intermediary in the redistribution of subsidies, which excludes it from the sphere of action defined by the financial regulation, and on the other hand, an audit of the activities subsidised by the Commission in recent years has been launched in the light of past experience. I should like, however, to explain to you that the Commission has already begun to phase out preferential collaboration activities with independent networks such as FIME. Moreover, FIME, like the Europe Houses that are affiliated to it, has been invited to respond to the invitations to submit proposals issued by the Commission, either at central level or at national level, via the appropriate representatives.
Any invitation to submit proposals requires a jury of experts composed, depending on individual cases, of external experts or Commission officials, so as to guarantee its objectivity and transparency. A certain number of amendments have this in mind, and want Parliament to be informed in advance about the content of any invitations to submit proposals, before they are published by the Commission, or about the principle, the detailed implementing rules, or the composition of a jury. Mr President, while supporting these principles, the Commission cannot accept these amendments, which do not correspond to provisions concerning relations between the institutions established in the comitology decision, or which interfere with the executive powers of the Commission. These are as follows: on culture, Amendments 11, 21 and 22, on education, Amendments 13, 14 and 15, and on youth, Amendments 15, 22 and 23. However, we agree to Amendment 17 on youth, which proposes that Parliament should be informed every year about the annual implementation of our youth programme.
Naturally the Commission imposes an obligation on those people who have received a European subsidy to publicise the fact adequately. While sharing Parliament’s opinion on this point, it seems to us to be more appropriate to put this publicity obligation in the annex. That is why the Commission accepts Amendment 12 on culture, but cannot accept Amendment 3. The same situation means that, on youth, we accept Amendment 20 but reject Amendment 6, and, on education, we accept Amendment 12 but reject Amendment 2. It is a rule of the financial regulation that a gradual reduction should be applied to operating grants renewed annually. This gradual reduction is not always properly understood, and attempts have been made, in various places, to derogate from it. We cannot accept Amendments 13 and 14 on culture, which seek to abolish the annual reduction. The only exception recognised by the financial regulation involves cases where the beneficiaries have the characteristics of a body pursuing aims of general European interest within the meaning of that regulation. Three amendments on youth, namely Amendments 5, 18 and 19, seek to restrict the programme to youth organisations possessing such characteristics, and this is something we accept. On the other hand, other amendments go much further in the opposite direction, and we cannot accept either Amendment 24 on youth or Amendment 24 on culture, both of which propose a substantial increase in the rate of the gradual reduction.
Mr President, I shall pass rapidly over those amendments which the Commission agrees with and which seek to either clarify or simplify the text, or to strengthen it along the lines proposed by the Commission. These are, on culture, Amendments 2, 4 and 8; on education, Amendments 1, 3 and 7; and on youth, Amendments 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 13 and 16. In addition, the Commission sees itself in the role of cultural ambassador, as proposed in Amendment 9 on culture. I have limited myself – and please excuse me for having spoken for such a long time – to mentioning the most sensitive amendments proposed in the three reports. I should now like to invite you to do everything you can to ensure that the support which the Union gives to the Europe of culture, education and youth does not experience an eclipse. An agreement between the joint legislators, at this stage in the proceedings, is vital if the system is to get back on the road at the beginning of 2004."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples