Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-24-Speech-2-181"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061024.31.2-181"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honour for me to be here at Parliament’s debate on the 2007 budget. I can assure you that we will note with interest the issues raised during the discussion and pass them on to all our colleagues.
As we all know well, the 2007 budget is the first to be covered by the new interinstitutional agreement. It is very important that all of its old familiar aspects, such as ceilings and adequate margins, are respected right from the start. The new agreement also has new provisions on, for example, pilot projects and preparatory operations. I would highlight the importance of these provisions, which clearly state that pilot projects and preparatory operations are not the exclusive right of one budgetary authority. Both Parliament and the Council must also respect this aspect of the content of the new interinstitutional agreement.
The 2007 budget is a package. It is important that the budgetary authorities establish the jointly agreed package within the framework of the budgetary procedure. The crucial elements of the overall package are interlinked.
Finally, I would like to return to the revision of the Financial Regulation. This is a subject that Parliament and the Commission have been anxious about, and they have been urging the Council to make haste. President Borrel last raised the matter in his discussions with Prime Minister Vanhanen on 17 October. It is with pleasure that I can now state that the Council adopted a common position on the revision of the Financial Regulation on 19 October. We can therefore hold negotiations with Parliament on the Financial Regulation on 21 November. I am sorry that we have not been able to keep to the timetable proposed by the Commissioner responsible for the budget in her letter in June. The Commission had hoped that the meeting would be held last week. I believe, however, that the timetable that I have referred to will give everyone sufficient time to formulate a comprehensive overall solution.
I hope that these brief comments of mine have done something to clarify the Council’s opinions. I earnestly believe that Parliament and the Council can reach a good common solution on the budget for 2007 in the discussions in the weeks ahead.
The budget’s drafting process is a long one. I appreciate the frank atmosphere of debate that has reigned all year long between Members of the Council and Parliament. We last discussed the issue at the budget trilogue on 18 October. I had an opportunity then to give a few tentative reactions to the draft amendments by the Committee on Budgets, to be voted on in plenary on Thursday. Before I present certain important matters to the Council, I would like to deal with certain issues of quality, which are of importance for the work of the Union as a whole.
It is my intention now to speak frankly and call a spade a spade. I believe that the Committee on Budgets, under the leadership of Mr Elles and Mr Grech, has worked without bias, by also focusing on what can be accomplished using our citizens’ and taxpayers’ money. Hopefully, the Commission too will become involved in this work.
The value for money from Union taxes must be made a regular process. The value for money concept must become something that pervades the entire budgetary procedure.
In my opinion, the first reading of the budget should concentrate on facts and figures. I do not think that the budgetary authorities should make political statements at first reading.
I said at the Council presentation of the draft budget on 5 September 2006 that the EU’s budgetary procedure is in need of innovation. Without innovative budgetary solutions we cannot promote the Union’s competitiveness or make the institutions’ administration more efficient. The budgetary authorities must take concrete action to achieve their objectives in this 2007 budget.
From the Council’s viewpoint, Parliament’s intention to increase payment appropriations significantly, when there is no proven need to do so, is not the right way to build a bridge between the EU and the general public. An increase on this scale would only result in an enormous surplus in the first year. The 2007 budget should be based on realistic and justified appropriation needs.
Halving the common foreign and security policy budget is simply not acceptable. In the interinstitutional agreement concluded five months ago, Parliament approved an average sum of EUR 250 million per annum. That being the case, I believe that the EUR 159 million advocated by the Commission and the Council is a reasonable figure. I would therefore ask how Parliament’s suggestion of EUR 73 million can be justified. I would hope that the plenary session will act responsibly with regard to these two whole areas.
The budgetary authorities need to develop a procedure for the use of reserves in the very near future. Appropriations should not be set aside merely for tactical reasons. Here too, the provisions of the Financial Regulation must be complied with to the letter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples