Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-04-Speech-2-265"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070904.25.2-265"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I would like to respond and to repeat my response which I already sent to Mr Crowley about the annual procedures and budget procedures in general, and how they can and could be improved. I would like to give my answer in two parts. The first for the current reading, what can still be done, how we can use funds more efficiently, and, of course, the future proposals in our revised treaty, which arose from the June Council this year.
In the current Treaty procedures, we can say that we are satisfied in general with the results, because under the current Treaty we have the possibility of improving and finding the fast-track solution if an urgent situation occurs. A recent example is last year’s tsunami, and this year it was Palestine and partly Kosovo. We were able to find the solution by fast-tracking one reading – but it takes some time, and very much depends on consolidated, trilateral negotiations between the two budgetary authorities and the Commission.
But of course the honourable Member is right in saying that, in this Treaty, there can already be a lot of room for improvement, and one of the examples concerns the pragmatic timetable in the annual budgetary procedure – followed since 1975. We, on top of the treaty request, we altogether – I mean all budgetary authorities and the Commission – agreed to add two and a half months to the procedure, mainly because at that time there was no electronic mail. Now we do not need this time schedule but still, inertly, we have this time schedule on our tables and nobody tries to deal with this question. Of course these productivity gains can be drawn already on this example.
But another element which is very interesting and we have adopted together in negotiations with Parliament and Council, and the Council has finally adopted, the new Financial Regulation and its implementing rules, which have been in force since May of this year, 2007. Here, already, we have some simplification and streamlining in the implementation of the European budget on an annual basis.
But of course probably the best messages I can transfer today to you are the revised treaty proposals. And, here, I would like to point out four elements which can improve democratic scrutiny, accountability and transparency in the budgetary procedure.
The first innovative proposal in the revised treaty is that the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure is proposed to be eliminated, providing one procedure for the adoption of the annual budget by the budgetary authorities.
Secondly, the so-called ‘maximum rate of increase’ in Article 27 of the EC Treaty – usually a source of conflict in the annual negotiation process – will no longer be in use or necessary because the substitute in practical terms for the maximum rate of increase, the multi-annual financial framework, will be enshrined in the treaties, which is not the case today.
Finally, in future financial regulations we will have a different adoption process. This will be adopted by codecision with Parliament. Until 2007 it was decided unanimously only by the Council – by the Member States. That is a huge difference which we envisage.
So all these proposals, together with the possibility of improving on an annual and everyday basis, will give more powers to the democratically elected European Parliament and will further democratise the decision-making process."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples