Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-20-Speech-4-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031120.1.4-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, since this is a joint debate, the bad news is that I shall have to speak at some length, but the good news is I will be as quick as I possibly can whilst not avoiding responding to the detailed issues that have been raised by honourable Members in their activities, which I know reflect the hard and intensive work they have been doing.
The Commission's proposal before the House seeks to ensure harmonious transition from the old system to the new arrangements and continuity in the activities being supported. We have endeavoured to produce a text which, to a large extent, extends the 2003 implementation procedures while incorporating the requirements of the new Financial Regulation in terms of sound financial management of public funds.
This proposal for a legal basis should therefore be considered a technical adjustment. There is, nevertheless, a great and understandable temptation to grasp the opportunity to add innovations and suggest improvements. Parliament, as ever, is immensely helpful with this creativity. This may, however, be risky
particularly if such additions compromise the subsequent adoption of the proposal by the Council. The Commission's proposal has therefore been formulated in what we consider to be a measured way, with the essential objective of continuing what has already been accomplished and by providing a legal structure which is consistent with the new Financial Regulation.
I would consequently invite honourable Members not to distance themselves too much from the Commission's proposals and to do their utmost to ensure that this legal basis is adopted as quickly as possible.
Furthermore, in the case of the legal basis for active civic participation, the margin for manoeuvre is even more limited because unanimity is required in Council.
All avenues for compromise must be explored if we are to succeed in completing this procedure as speedily as possible. In fact, as from 1 January 2004, in the absence of this legal basis, it would quite simply not be possible for us to provide financial support to all the organisations which participate actively in the promotion of European citizenship. We would greatly regret that, and doubtless Parliament would too.
I shall now outline the position of the Commission on the amendments contained in Mrs Rühle's report. The Commission can accept in full Amendments 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 13 and 31, which provide useful clarifications to the text. While recalling the need to apply the new Financial Regulation, the Commission sees no objection to Amendment 45 on the simplification of administrative procedures.
It goes without saying that the Commission will impose an obligation on those who have received a European subsidy to provide adequate publicity. While entirely agreeing with Parliament on this point, as outlined in Amendment 48, we feel that it would be more appropriate to list this obligation in the conventions to be signed with the beneficiaries. The same holds true for Amendment 49 on the dissemination and availability of results. The Commission agrees with Amendment 47, which underlines the need for regular exchanges of views with the beneficiaries.
The Commission can partly accept Amendment 25. Since the amendment does not alter the substance of the Commission proposal, we can accept the proposal to specify that the budgetary appropriations scheduled after 2006 are subject to an agreement of the budgetary authority on the financial perspective beyond 2006. However, the Commission is willing to accept the same duration for all seven proposals in the package until 2006 if that helps to find a compromise for all the proposals with a view to having them adopted in time for implementing the budget in 2004.
As this proposal has to be seen in conjunction with the other proposals in the package, the amendments on 'earmarking' and the possibility of an executive agency also have to be settled in the broader context.
The Commission cannot accept, in the same amendment, a reference to the total amount allocated to the programme since this is not consistent with the legislative procedures provided for in the consultation procedure.
As this House knows, the three European institutions worked together to secure a new Financial Regulation in 2002 that will come into effect on 1 January 2003. The regulation provides
inter alia
a clear framework for subsidies through which we support a large number of European organisations in the dialogue with European citizens, and it also stipulates that each financial decision should have a legal basis to ensure its justification.
The Commission can also partially accept Amendment 28. We have no objections to sending reports on implementation of the programme, but we cannot accept transferring the content of the Annex to Article 8a, which would not be in line with the usual format of legal texts. The same applies to Amendments 20, 21, 22, 29 and 30, which the Commission rejects.
The Commission understands the view of Parliament on the matter of focusing on potential enlargement of the scope and objectives of this proposal. However, it is our intention to guarantee the continuity of the activities already supported by the Commission in the past, so we have to refuse Amendments 14, 40, 41, 42 and 43, with a view to reaching a unanimous position on our proposal in the Council.
Amendments 6 and 33, concerning the European Movement, are rejected as well as Amendments 32, 34, 35, 36 and 37, which add new organisations to the list of beneficiaries. With a view to ensuring the continuity of funding currently allocated, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to open a discussion on the list of organisations contained in Part 1.
In accordance with the Financial Regulation, we intend to launch a call for proposals which will be open to all organisations active in this area. However, to facilitate the transition from the system of 'earmarking' to the system of calls for proposals, and taking into account the time left before the programme enters into force, we consider it more appropriate to apply the model of earmarking for 2004, and to publish an open call for proposals as from 2005.
This would be a reasonable compromise since it would be technically impossible, under the procedures laid down in the Financial Regulation, to launch a call for proposals after the adoption of this legal base which would still allow for financing as from the beginning of 2004. As a consequence, the Commission can, in principal, accept the application of a system of 'earmarking'. We consider, however, that this approach should be restricted to 2004 and the operating rules should be laid down in the Annex rather than in the text of the programme.
Therefore, for technical reasons, the Commission cannot accept that part of Amendment 23 relating to Group 1.
The part of the amendment relating to Group 2 and aiming at the incorporation of organisations having a different perspective of the policies of the Union is considered quite superfluous, and therefore cannot be accepted. The last part of the amendment is not in line with the usual format of legal texts and is also rejected.
On the possible involvement of an executive agency for the management of part of the programme, particularly in relation to management of the large number of projects in the town-twinning part of the programme, the Commission emphasises that such an approach conforms to Article 55 of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
In fact, the Commission envisages the setting-up of such an executive agency in the area of education and culture. Subject to the conclusions of a cost-benefit study currently under preparation by an external consultant, the Commission could propose that such an agency should be partly involved in the management of this programme. Before reaching a final decision, the Commission will submit this proposal to the Executive Agency Committee of the Council. The Commission is therefore not in a position at this juncture to accept Amendment 46.
The Commission rejects Amendments 2, 8, 10, 17, 19, 24 and 50, which are considered superfluous because the issues are already sufficiently detailed in the existing text or covered by other texts. The reference to full employment in Amendment 3 is rejected because it is deemed to be over-ambitious. Amendment 5 which refers to the draft Constitution is premature since it may still be modified.
That requirement is particularly relevant for those subsidies which have been financed from lines whose position in the budgetary structure
the so-called A-part of the budget
meant that they could be assimilated into administrative expenditure and consequently be incurred without a clear legal basis. The modification of the budgetary structure introduced in the new Financial Regulation has brought to an end this assimilation of administrative expenditure, meaning that a legal basis for the subsidies in question is now required.
We consider that the proposal to carry out regular evaluations of the organisations listed in part 1 referred to in Amendment 38 would be far too cumbersome to enact since these organisations are listed as recipients for the whole duration of the programme. A modification of the list would therefore require a new Council decision.
Amendment 39 is unacceptable because it goes against the very essence of the action programme which aims to foster European networks. Amendment 40 concerning the media is also rejected because it may jeopardise applications from grass-roots organisations
The Commission rejects Amendment 44 which represents unacceptable interference with the Commission's implementation powers. The information of national parliaments, as suggested in Amendment 27, is not appropriate and the Commission considers that any evaluation of the programme should be based on a two-year reference period and therefore rejects Amendment 26.
Amendment 51, which was tabled after the adoption of Mrs Rühle’s report in committee, is unacceptable to the Commission since it cannot guarantee the implementation of programmes before the legal basis is adopted.
In conclusion, on this particular response, of the 51 amendments tabled by Parliament, the Commission accepts 14 in full, partially accepts 2 and rejects 35.
I invite the House to do everything possible to ensure that the support provided by the European Union to the creation of a European citizenship is not derailed. If the system is to be put back on track at the beginning of 2004, an agreement at this stage in the procedure will be decisive as I know honourable Members fully understand.
I am grateful for the attention of the House. I have one short set of further points to make before I conclude. This relates to the decision of Parliament and Council establishing a Community programme to promote organisations active at EU level in the field of equality between women and men.
First of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, and the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities for their work and achievements on this dossier, which have been considerable in all respects.
I am pleased that progress has already been made in Council and in Parliament on this basic act which is designed to provide a legal base for continuing funding support for organisations active at EU level in promoting gender equality.
I welcome most of the 20 amendments in Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou's report adopted on 3 November 2003 by the Committee on Women's Rights, because they add precision and clarity to this basic act. However, the Commission is not in favour of some amendments relating to aspects of the duration of the programme and its evaluation.
It is this new obligation which led the Commission in May 2003 to present seven proposals for new legal bases. These were accompanied by a communication from Mrs Schreyer, which underlined the common context and presented identical solutions for common problems.
The Commission proposed a duration of two years
2004 and 2005
because it will include this topic in the overall reflections on the future of the equality strategy after 2005. The Commission cannot, therefore, agree with the extension of the duration of the programme until 2008 as proposed in Amendment 8. As a consequence, the Commission does not accept Amendments 6 and 7 on degressivity, Amendment 9 on increase in the financial framework, or Amendment 10 on budgetary authority agreement post-2006.
As far as the evaluation of the programme by the Commission is concerned, the Financial Regulation provides the solid framework that is necessary. Amendment 11, which suggests that this evaluation should be based on an external report, is therefore unnecessary and seems disproportionate to the small amounts involved in this programme and its duration.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 19 because it considers it better to keep the themes general rather than specific.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 20 because it would impinge on the Commission's role in executing the programme.
The adoption of this basic act in a short timeframe is very important in order not to disrupt the Community's financial support for those organisations, and notably the European Women's Lobby.
To sum up, the Commission can accept Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 and it rejects Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19 and 20 for the reasons I have given.
I am grateful to the House for the patience extended to me in making a rather long contribution.
The Commission welcomes this report by Mr Sacrédeus and appreciates the priority which the drafters and Parliament have given to dealing with the Commission’s proposal. With Parliament’s opinion it should now be possible to have the decision in force in 2004 and following a call for proposals, to go ahead with the selection of beneficiaries for operating grants for next year. The goal agreed between Parliament and Council during the conciliation of 16 July was the entry into force, by 2004, of the legal bases for grants which did not have that coverage.
The legal base presented today, together with the six other proposals covering grants, is important because it is a direct consequence of the innovations concerning grants in the new Financial Regulation and is firmly anchored in the basic principles of transparency and equal treatment for potential beneficiaries. Most of the amendments proposed in Parliament's resolution are acceptable to the Commission and in keeping with the spirit of the Commission’s proposal. However, the Commission thinks it appropriate to limit the amount of the grant to 70% of the eligible costs and not 80%. Similarly, the Commission is of the view that a digressivity rate of 10% per year is preferable to 2.5%. Our view is that both of these requirements are safeguards which will go some way to ensuring sustainability and encouraging beneficiaries to be active in seeking alternative and complementary revenue streams.
One point which should be mentioned is the need to ensure coherence between the proposed Council decision and the budget. In the Preliminary Draft Budget the Commission proposed one budget line to regroup amounts which, in the 2003 budget, are distributed over four lines in Chapter A 30.
The future legal base for this single line, as required by the new Financial Regulation, is the proposed decision which is before the House today. This decision provides for the selection of beneficiaries following a call for proposals in accordance with the principles of transparency and equal treatment. At first reading, Parliament replaced the single line with five lines. The title of each line is the name of an Institute. There is a clear incompatibility between the future legal base and the division of the budget line in this manner. The Commission hopes that the adopted budget will correspond to the PDB proposal, so permitting us to execute the proposal and appropriations in full compliance with European Law as defined by the new Financial Regulation adopted by this House and the Council.
I now turn to the report by Mrs Rühle on the proposal for an action programme to promote civic participation. I am grateful to Mrs Rühle for having acknowledged the urgency of this matter and for having ensured speedy adoption by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This has been immensely helpful."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples