Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-26-Speech-3-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051026.2.3-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow the European Parliament is to vote on the European Union’s budget for 2006. The significance of this vote will be greater than just the setting of an annual allocation of EU finances. 2006 is the last year of the existing Financial Perspective. Therefore, the 2006 budget will also serve as a point of reference in taking decisions for the next Financial Perspective, that for 2007–2013.
With regard to the 2006 budget for the other EU institutions, the main priorities are EU enlargement and the effective and highly targeted use of EU budget resources. The first priority is connected with the successful completion of the 2004 round of EU enlargement, by fully integrating representatives from the new EU Member States into the EU institutions, as well as preparations for the next round of EU enlargement, when Bulgaria and Romania will join. We have an unacceptable situation where, despite more than a year having already passed since EU enlargement, many permanent staff posts set aside for the new Member States still remain vacant. One of the problems to be emphasised in this connection is the excessive red-tape and slow procedures for taking on staff. In order to ensure that the next round of EU enlargement is successful, it is proposed that support should be given to all the permanent staff posts requested by the other institutions in connection with enlargement, and also other additional expenditure connected with EU enlargement. The second priority is effective and highly targeted use of EU budget resources. This priority encompasses such matters as: focusing EU institutional expenditure on fundamental tasks; giving support to requests for new budget requests and permanent staff posts only after having assessed the possibility of redistributing resources and staff within the framework of the existing budget; giving support to new initiatives only after having assessed their impact on the budget and interinstitutional cooperation with a view to economical and effective use of budget resources. Both institutions with budgetary decision-making powers – the European Parliament and the Council – endorse the principles of budgetary discipline and the rational use of EU taxpayers’ money. The Council is proposing to reduce the administrative expenditure of the other institutions by 15 million euro as compared with the institutions’ original requests. It must be said, however, that in many cases this reduction has been implemented in an ill-considered manner, without thorough examination of the specific nature and problems of the institutions’ work. Following a careful review of the requests in the budget for the other institutions it is proposed to restore part of the reductions made by the European Council to the budget – a total amount of 7.5 million euro. With regard to the European Parliament budget, firstly I should like to emphasise the issue of the ceiling on joint expenditure. After a wide-ranging discussion within the Committee on Budgets, taking into account the experience of last year with inflated budget votes and the resulting failure to achieve Parliament’s budgeted expenditure, it is proposed to reduce Parliament’s budgeted expenditure by 20 million euro as compared with the administration’s requests. I believe that the European Parliament budget ought to be set on the basis of needs that have been established following careful evaluation. Achieving a ceiling of 20% of total administrative expenditure is not an end in itself.
Of course, the issue of the sum of over 200 million euro per year which is spent additionally in order to provide the European Parliament with a seat in Strasbourg is still a topical one. The main problem is the maintenance of two European Parliament buildings in parallel, in Brussels and Strasbourg. It must be acknowledged that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the European Council.
Considerable attention has been paid in the European Parliament’s budget for 2006 to information and communication policy, to ensure that information is accessible and that the work of the European Parliament is better explained to EU citizens. The European Parliament’s role as the representative of the EU Member States should be especially stressed in this connection. Various measures have already been taken. I can mention, for instance, the launch of the new European Parliament home page, where much more emphasis has been placed on current information about the work of the European Parliament in all the official EU languages. It is proposed that in 2006 the European Parliament’s visitors’ programme should be improved, and that a special reserve should be established for information and communication.
Finally, I should like to return to the issue I emphasised at the beginning of my speech. In view of the fact that 2006 is the final year of the current Financial Perspective, it is important for the total amount of commitment and payment appropriations for the 2006 budget to correspond with the commitments which the European Union has undertaken, including those connected with EU enlargement. I fully agree with what Mr Pittella said, that in 2006 it is necessary to provide an adequate amount of payment appropriations, including for the Structural Funds. The attitude adopted by the European Council in connection with the EU budget for 2005, where it artificially blocked the amount of payment appropriations, was unacceptable. Now the unjustified nature of the European Council’s stance has become obvious. The European Commission is preparing amendments to the 2005 budget, providing a larger sum of payment appropriations for the Structural Funds. If the European Council tries once more to block the amount of payment appropriations for the 2006 budget, that will prove the Council’s unwillingness to fully finance those commitments which the EU has undertaken within the framework of the existing Financial Perspective. It must be said that this indulging in empty promises without backing them up with deeds increases the alienation and scepticism that citizens feel towards the EU.
In conclusion, I would also like particularly to draw the attention of Commissioner Grybauskaitė to the poor quality of the Latvian translation of the budget prepared by the European Commission. For example, budget lines 02030202 and 02030203, which deal with medicines for treating rare diseases. The Commission’s Latvian translation talks about resources for treating orphans and medicines for orphans. Therefore, the Commissioner should not be surprised: she is going to receive requests from Latvia’s orphans to fund their medicines, since that is what it actually says in the translation prepared by the European Commission. Thank you for your attention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples