Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.6.2-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, when, some months ago, we set the guidelines for the 2003 Budget, there was a great deal of agreement in Parliament concerning three priorities for category 5.
For precisely that reason, we must strengthen these areas, develop better follow-up of the budget and increase support for MEPs in the legislative work.
If room for everything – the costs of enlargement and Parliament’s necessary reforms – is to be found within the framework of the third priority – that is to say, with ever greater expenses being dealt with within the established budget framework – a strict budget process is required. In spite of all the commitments entailed in the biggest enlargement in the EU’s history, the 2003 Budget will be managed within the 20% framework that has for a long time been Parliament’s portion of the common budget.
For next year, we are looking to a 1.6% increase, which has to be compared with an intended increase of, on average, 3.5% for all the EU institutions.
When, a few months ago, we began work on the 2003 Budget, there was a large estimated deficit in category 5. A few months later, the majority of institutions responded positively to the challenges from Parliament and the Council to focus on the key activities and so reduce its estimates. When we now look at the Budget figures from other institutions, it appears in actual fact fully possible for us to be able successfully to manage our commitments within applicable frameworks without using any flexibility instrument.
Allow me finally to make a short technical correction. Paragraph 22 of the resolution quotes a sum of EUR 15.5 million for the buildings reserve. If it is accurately to reflect today’s decision, the amount should be adjusted somewhat so that Parliament remains under the ceiling of EUR 1 051 million.
The first of these concerned preparations for the forthcoming enlargement, the second concerned necessary institutional reforms and the third concerned the need to deal with everything within the framework of the budget.
These are priorities which, for Parliament, must now be translated into figures and calculations in euros and cents. If, at its summit in Copenhagen in December, the European Council decides in favour of a ‘big bang’ whereby ten new countries will become members in time for the next elections to the European Parliament in 2004, this will present extraordinarily large demands.
There is no greater challenge for the European Parliament than precisely this. If such an enlargement is to be possible, it will have to be possible for up to 147 observers to be in place from the beginning of 2003. With this in view, it is now proposed that EUR 6 million be placed in a reserve. It is estimated that the enlargement-related costs for 2003 will amount to just over EUR 32 million in total.
By means of a far-sighted policy, Parliament has for a long time been working single-mindedly to make the forthcoming enlargement possible. It is a task which is now continuing into the 2003 Budget. There is also a readiness in this Budget to bring certain costs for 2004 forward into the 2003 Budget. This sum amounts to EUR 51 million. In total, this means, in other words, a financial investment of EUR 89 million in the course of just a single budget year.
If it is to be possible to cope with all this, enlargement must be given top priority by the European Parliament, and that must also have a visible effect on the budget work.
Parliament’s own reform process is of the utmost significance and is priority number two. I believe that, in common with myself, a good many MEPs have heard remarks over the years along the lines that this is not a proper parliament. In many ways, that may once have been an accurate observation in the sense that the European Parliament did not have any real legislative power. Today, Parliament has power of co-decision in ever increasing areas. It is probably not difficult to predict that there will be a further increase in the use of this power.
If that is to be possible, Parliament must be strengthened in its key functions. We are talking here, then, about MEPs’ ability to exercise the power due to every Parliament in every democracy and relating to the budget, legislation and oversight.
Unless we continue to invest seriously in these functions, there will, in the future too, be many people who maintain that we are not a proper parliament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples