Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-24-Speech-3-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020424.5.3-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this evening is a special one for me, as, by way of exception, I am not at all in agreement with the Committee on Budget's resolution, and take a different view of these matters. The Member States do not just want their money back, they are actually owed it under the Treaty, and the Commission has accordingly submitted the Supplementary and Amending Budget. The money from the Member States' contributions to the European Budget that we have not used over the past year should, in accordance with the legislation, be given back by us to the Member States as quickly as possible on economic grounds alone, as anything else would result in economic losses.
We had a very large surplus last year, and I will be coming back in this speech to its various elements. The Supplementary and Amending Budget also comprises several elements, namely, firstly, the surplus from last year and secondly the implementation of the new own resources decision, which has various constituent parts. The new own resources decision, as agreed in Berlin, was meant to enter into force with effect from 1 January 2002, but, as several Member States were late in ratifying it, the 2000 Budget still had to be based on the old own resources decision. What this means in real terms is that some of the present Member States had to pay higher contributions than they would have to under the new own resources decision.
The new own resources decision has various elements to it: 25% of customs receipts can remain with the Member States, and the share from VAT receipts is reduced, while that in terms of GNP is increased, thus resulting in the financial burden being shifted. There is also the third element: four Member States get, so to speak, a rebate on the rebate paid to the United Kingdom, that is, one rebate on another.
That is what has been decided, and is now to be put into practice, the Commission having for that reason linked it with the surplus. Member States will be enabled to keep 25% of customs receipts with effect from 1 January 2001. The money that would have been required for this has of course been set off against the surplus, as it would otherwise have had to be returned and then collected back again.
It gives me great pleasure to hear that, Mr Walter!
I would now, though, like to briefly say something about how a surplus of these dimensions came about. It is the case, as has been said here already, that the surplus or under-utilisation in the area of the Structural Funds is around the order of EUR 10 billion. I must again point out that, at this stage of the new programme, it is no longer a case of the Commission being too slow in authorising projects; rather, we now have the stipulation that the Commission makes repayments to the Member States when these submit an invoice for a programme that has been implemented. If there are no invoices, then nothing can be paid out. In 2000, we still had the option of making advance payments, as provided for by the relevant regulation. In 2001, that was no longer possible, and the question does indeed arise as to why the Member States' estimates last year of the resources they required to implement the programmes were far in excess of the sums subsequently called for.
Still in connection with the surplus, there are two other things I would like to mention. Firstly, in the agricultural policy area, there were actually savings of the order of EUR 2 billion, mainly because the weakness that affected the market for cattle following the BSE crisis turned out not to last for as long as had at first been surmised, and the market recovered more quickly. Other market areas were in a better position than prior estimates had suggested. We are talking here about real savings in which we can take pleasure. Secondly, in foreign policy, that is, in category 4, almost 90% of the resources available were drawn on. In the second year, we achieved an improvement on the former position, and I believe that it has to be clearly underlined that the administrative reforms introduced by my fellow-Commissioners Chris Patten and Poul Nielson in the field of foreign policy are now bearing real fruit. The charge that the EU makes great promises but never really gets anything done will not stick any more.
The Member States are of course waiting for last year's high surplus to be returned to their budgets. It is of such dimensions that it is now of real economic relevance to the budgets of the Member States. When you consider that the economic slowdown that we have had since 11 September has of course had its effects on the Member States' budgets, it is absolutely clear that they are awaiting the repayment from the European Budget precisely in order to avoid greater deficits. The Commission takes the view that it would be sensible in terms of overall economic responsibility to avoid delays. Let me now summarise Mr Walter's and Mr Wynn's contributions: We have not given back any Easter eggs, and a glance at the timetable indicates that there will not be any bouquets for Whitsun either, but I will gladly accede to the request of the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets not to let them turn into Christmas presents!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Interruption: Very good!)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples