Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.3.2-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the present crisis in farming – the BSE crisis and the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease – has stimulated public interest in the EU budget. People keep asking if it is still possible to finance it or if this crisis has shot the EU budget to pieces. These questions demonstrate that the EU's budget planning must be flexible enough to cope with unforeseen expenditure. On the other hand, expenditure to which there is a legal entitlement has to be financed, multiannual programmes have to be implemented and there most also be scope for setting new priorities.
This crisis has shaken consumer confidence in food safety, and President Prodi stressed in his first speech here as President of the Commission how important food safety would be in the Commission's work programme. And you, Mr Costa Neves, on behalf of Parliament, have made it clear both in your report and in your speech how important this is for the next budget. The same point has also been made very clear in other speeches this morning.
I believe that we can definitely say today that the European Food Safety Authority will be set up at the beginning of next year, and I believe that as regards budgetary provision there is a general consensus that the resources for this – by which I mean both operational appropriations and human resources for the European Food Safety Authority – will be included in the 2002 budget. I think that is good news for all consumers.
Of course, full provision is made for important structural support programmes in the budget planning process. The new period of support started last year, and because of the major changes not all programmes could be approved in time or the relevant funds committed. That is why the wise precaution was taken of stipulating in the 1999 Interinstitutional Agreement that appropriations not committed in the previous year can be carried forward. EUR 6.15 billion are involved here. Mr Colom i Naval made some observations about this. Of course, we need to find the must practical solution possible for this re-budgetisation and for adjusting the financial perspective.
I also regret that we have not managed to get everyone together so that we could agree the relevant figures today. Nevertheless, I think that things are heading in the right direction, and to respect the IIA, a decision needs to be taken by 1 May. Given that 1 May is a holiday, I think that 2 May would be just as good.
Mr Costa Neves, on behalf of Parliament, you have identified some further priorities for the next budget that I would like to comment on. Firstly, the problem of illegal immigration. I would like to point out once again that the 2001 budget already includes funding for an action to carry out educational and information work in the countries of origin, in order to tackle the problem at source. Many people are brought here by gangs of traffickers. This really is about trafficking in human beings, and we need to do everything we can to combat this. And, of course, those people who said that in the field of legal policy it is not always a matter of providing new operational appropriations, but rather the appropriate human resources, were quite right, and Commissioner Vitorino's Directorate-General, which is responsible for this area, has so far been allocated additional posts in every staffing round.
Secondly, there is the area of e-learning. It has been pointed out how important this is for the objective of making Europe a knowledge-based economy.
Of course, the issue of equipping classrooms with computers or giving schools Internet access is above all a matter for the Member States, under the principle of subsidiarity. We should not forget that. But at the same time it is naturally a good thing if all the Member States adopt ambitious targets. Financial aid for meeting these objectives is available from several EU programmes, and this should be made more visible to the public, so that it is clear to them what their money is being spent on at EU level. In other words, this is a good example to demonstrate that EU taxes are not just spent on emergency actions such as culling cattle, but that these taxes are also being invested in the future of the rising generation.
Because of the frontloading of the Balkan programme over the last two years, it seems that it will no longer be necessary to increase the budget provision for external actions next year. As Mr Wynn remarked, this still has to be confirmed by the World Bank report. The Commission would like to prioritise the Mediterranean Development Assistance Programme, not so much by entering into new commitments, but rather by implementing existing commitments in concrete and visible projects from which the public benefits.
I would like to take this opportunity to stress how important it is for the reform of the Commission to bring the peer group evaluation process to a satisfactory conclusion, so that the 317 Commission posts in priority areas can be filled. That is why we are once again requesting the budgetary authority for these posts.
At present there are 27 700 posts in all in the European Union's establishment plan. I believe that this is a number that we should keep reminding people about, because the public often imagine that far more people are involved. The Commission accounts for 18 400 of these, the Council for 2 650, and Parliament for 4 260. I would like to thank Mrs Buitenweg for her report, which makes it clear that the margin for administrative expenditure is rather tight and that successful cooperation is therefore needed if we are to get by here in future. I totally agree with her approach, which is that administrative preparations for enlargement should be undertaken jointly by all the institutions and that this is genuinely an area for sensible interinstitutional cooperation.
Today we are debating the priorities for the 2002 budget, and this is the first time, as has already been emphasised, that all three institutions involved in the budgetary process – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – have identified their priorities at this stage. I would like to thank the Council, who are absent today, for this new form of cooperation through the General Affairs Council, which discussed external policy in its priorities back in January, and through the Ecofin Council, which discussed the priorities for the 2002 budget as a whole in March. I would also like to thank the European Parliament very sincerely, and you in particular, Mr Costa Neves, as the general rapporteur on the coming year's budget.
I would like to briefly expand on the question of Category 8. These funds are made available for the new enlargement countries, so if there is no enlargement, this funding is, of course, not made available. I do not think that it makes much sense at the moment to talk about topping up pre-accession aid.
In conclusion, the budget process does not just mean taking decisions about figures; it is also about converting the figures into successful policies. That is why implementation issues have quite rightly been addressed in priority setting by the Council, Parliament and the Commission. Reducing old liabilities, reducing payment delays and making budgetary decisions easier to understand are cornerstones of our policy here and will be covered in the Commission's progress report to Parliament. The decision that the budgetary authority will present weekly figures on budget implementation means, and I am proud to say this, that the Commission will really be in the vanguard of the movement for greater budgetary transparency. We are also working on making the budget plan more comprehensible, step by step, so that it is a source of information not just for budget experts, but also for the public.
Last year we introduced activity-based budgeting, and this year we are creating a clear link between strategic objectives and the allocation of resources, especially human resources. This will make the budget process more transparent, and will gradually make the budget what it ought to be – an expression of our shared political priorities.
Mr Costa Neves, setting priorities is the first building block for cooperation on the budget for any given year. It extends to the adoption of the budget and following on from that to the entire budget year, in the context of implementation. For my part I would like to offer full cooperation so that we get a good budget and good budget implementation in 2002.
The framework for next year's budget is determined by the financial perspective, by Agenda 2000, which has been referred to so often. Overall, on the basis of this financial perspective, new financial commitments that can be entered into next year could rise by 2.9% compared with this year. The financial perspective would allow a far higher rate of increase in means of payment, namely 7%, but just how much of this is actually necessary will become apparent when the preliminary draft budget is produced and after that under the further consultation process.
The financial perspective allows the highest rate of increase in agricultural expenditure. I am stressing that point in particular because it has been touched upon in many of the speeches we have heard. At any rate, in accordance with the financial perspective, an increase in absolute agricultural policy expenditure of EUR 2.5 billion is possible next year as compared with this year. That is certainly not chicken feed. But, of course, the question that arises is whether we can cope with this rate of increase without having to make decisions about structural savings. We all know that this depends on market trends and, of course, also on certain decisions about common market organisations that have still to be taken: the COM in sugar and the COM for cotton, to name just two. These are still on the Council's table.
However, another key factor, of course, is how last year's agricultural policy budget turns out and what the prospects are for the further spread of foot-and-mouth disease. As you know, the EU budget has to reimburse 60% of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in connection with foot-and-mouth. For several weeks now, there has been a working group of the Agriculture, Budget and Health and Consumer Protection Directorates-General, which makes almost weekly estimates of cost trends, and I have to say that because of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease there has, of course, been a sharp rise in costs. Estimated expenditure passed the EUR 100 million mark a week ago. These reimbursement payments will fall due next year, in the 2002 budget, and will, of course, have to be provided for, just as a decision has still to be made on expenditure arising from the BSE crisis, in the form of a second package of measures to combat the effects of that crisis.
The subject of an interim review of agricultural policy has also been raised. This is a process that will now be starting in order to examine our agricultural policy. In all areas of policy, including agricultural policy, we keep asking whether all the expenditure is justified. And for a great deal of expenditure that we have to set, such as that to deal with surpluses, it is worth asking if action is really being taken in the right area or if it would not be better to spend money elsewhere. In the case of agriculture, it might, for example, be better directed towards achieving objectives in the areas of consumer and environmental protection, animal and landscape conservation, and structural improvement in rural development.
When it comes to the agriculture budget – let me emphasise this point once again, as it was also confirmed in Stockholm – the upper limit in the financial perspective has to be observed, which is why a proposal for structural savings might have to be agreed for the 2002 preliminary draft budget. We are currently examining whether or not this will be necessary.
But one thing is clear, and I think I can say that there is a consensus on this amongst everyone involved in the budget process: on no account will rural development programmes be cut. This would be totally counterproductive if in the middle of a crisis during which everyone is talking about the need for reform, and in which everyone is talking about the need for more environmental protection, for more landscape conservation, for instance, if in those circumstances that programme were to be cut. I believe it is fair to say that there is a general consensus within the EU that that would be totally out of the question."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples