Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-24-Speech-3-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020424.5.3-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I do not believe I can improvise a five-minute speech on budgetary affairs. In any event, Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues from the Committee on Budgets and everybody else interested in budgetary affairs, the Wynn report – which was previously the Costa Neves report and which will very shortly be the Podestà report, which means that it will be one of the most well-agreed and negotiated reports of this whole legislative period – contains some very interesting points for Parliament to discuss.
Firstly, and this is an issue which affects the Commission, as our chairman Terry Wynn has pointed out, we should ask ourselves why so many amending and supplementary budgets are needed, since they very often entail administrative costs because a new procedure has to be undertaken and, above all, because these distort and devalue the annual budgetary procedure, as we all know, because we have discussed this many times. It would be preferable for us to restrict in some way this possibility of making so many amending budgets. This does not mean that Parliament does not agree with the policy of amending budgets. What is more, this Parliament, as you are well aware, is totally prepared to defend its rights so that amending budgets continue to exist in the current procedure, in their current form and with Parliament’s current rights. Therefore, we agree upon the basis, that is to say, that we agree that amending budgets should continue to exist, and that this Parliament should have something to say with regard to all of them.
We are talking in this case about a budget of balances, an enormous budget and surplus. We are talking about EUR 10 billion plus another estimated EUR 1.2 billion. We are talking, more or less, about EUR 12 billion. This is money which was already budgeted for and which will be given back to the Member States because of an underspend. A budgetary surplus in national budgetary policy is a good thing, it is a saving. It will often be the result of efforts not to spend and is money that will revert to national coffers or to taxpayers. However, in this case we are talking about a different kind of surplus. We are talking about an underspend in budget appropriations that were approved at the time by the European Parliament. We are talking about poor execution and poor management. We do not know whether this is the responsibility of the Commission, of the Member States, of the regional authorities or whoever, but, in any case, we find ourselves having to cope with the reality of EUR 12 billion that has been poorly managed and that will have to be returned to the Member States.
This is not good news for anyone concerned. It is not good news for the Commission nor for Parliament. Neither, essentially, is this good news for Finance Ministers, although it would appear to be so, for these are European funds, Community funds that have a multiplier effect in national economies. If they are not used, evidently this multiplier effect will not take place. Therefore, essentially, to have to give back this money as it is is a lost opportunity.
However, on the positive side, this budget will allow us to analyse how to reduce the balance of outstanding payments and needs for 2003 payments. Obviously, in order to enter into the payments for 2003, it is a good idea to start with payments for 2002, and for this reason amendments to payment appropriations of EUR 4.5 billion have been put forward, with which I believe this House will totally agree, because these affect all categories of expenditure. From the Structural Funds or the Leonardo programmes to the external action programmes, they cover the whole range of budgetary needs for payments.
We know this does not have to be a definitive position. Political life is a life of negotiation. We will have to negotiate with the Commission and the Council. Perhaps so many payment appropriations are not necessary. The effort needed for 2003 will perhaps be greater. Maybe the Council will want to reflect on the correct way to carry out interinstitutional relations, particularly with Parliament. I am sure that, in any event, the task of the three institutions this remaining month before the second part-session in May, in which we will make a definitive decision, will be a month of much negotiation and we are of course all very optimistic in this regard."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples