Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-179"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.7.2-179"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, honourable Members. The previous debate on aid in the event of natural disasters clearly demonstrated what people's expectations of the European budget are. But if we look at the real national quotas, i.e. the ratio between the European budget and the European national product, then the picture looks slightly different. It is almost the reverse, because the national quotas account for just over one per cent.
That only works, however, if all the institutions consider the model binding. I must therefore insist on the Commission's behalf that we take stock in October in order to ascertain whether this frontloading model is working or, if it is not, whether new decisions need to be taken.
Enlargement needs to be prepared so that it works right from the start. The Commission is counting on the European Parliament, it is confident that the European Parliament will not state that it is satisfied with the resolution passed in July alone and will check to ensure the Council is also making an effort to implement this frontloading model. I repeat, the Commission needs personnel resources in order to prepare for enlargement. Otherwise we cannot guarantee that the work needed to make a success of enlargement will be carried out from the start.
Thank you for your attention.
The Commission proposed 1.03% of the European national product for the 2003 budget. The Council cut this back slightly. According to the financial perspective, i.e. the financial forecasts we have all agreed on, it should in fact be 1.08%. I think this should in fact be taken as a guideline, even though I am in favour of keeping certain reserves back for contingencies, just to be on the safe side.
The Council has now made across-the-board reductions, for example in the agricultural sector, but has disregarded the fact that we need to revalue in order to take account of the current value of the dollar. But we are agreed that a new presentation of the necessary agricultural expenditure needs to be made in the autumn.
The Council has accepted a great many of the Commission's estimates for the draft 2003 budget. We welcome that. We also generally welcome the fact that a consensus has been reached in the foreign policy area and that the so-called emergency reserve can also be used to fund civil crisis management. I think that this should give us more chance to react quickly to crises and that this is an important step on the road towards a clear, efficient common foreign and security policy.
However, I must also seriously criticise the outcome of the Council reading. For example, the question of how funds to restructure the fisheries fleet in Spain and Portugal or measures needed to support sustainable fisheries reforms shall be financed has still not been answered.
This question was broached but then put on the back burner. And the Council has reduced funds to cofinance the trans-European transport and energy network by 15 million. Member States already have high hopes in precisely this sector, which will now be discussed in connection with natural disasters. I think this reduction should also be reversed.
I must also heavily criticise the Council decision on personnel expenditure, i.e. its approach to the personnel costs of the individual institutions. The financial perspective allowed a 3.6% increase for all the institutions. And yet the Council has awarded itself a much higher increase. Taking personnel costs alone, the Council has awarded itself a twofold increase. And if you add in all the Council's administrative expenditure, the Council has awarded itself an 11% increase. I must state quite clearly here, to paraphrase the words used with such gusto by the Ecofin Council, the Council of Finance Ministers, on another occasion: this Council decision on its own administrative resources does not fit into the budgetary landscape. It has helped itself, at the cost of others, to be precise at the cost of the Commission, where the Council has suggested swingeing cuts. Obviously, the Commission's administrative expenses for the year 2003 will be very high, because this is the year we shall be preparing for the biggest enlargement in the history of the European Union and the Commission will need to start preparations in 2003 so that we can control new members right from the start. For example, we shall need to control how environmental laws are being transposed, if competition rules are being complied with, what the situation is in the food law sector or the veterinary sector and whether European Union legislation is also being implemented.
These are just some examples of the Commission's work. Obviously, there is no point in starting to negotiate structural assistance or agricultural aid programmes with new members once they have already joined. Preparations need to start now and that takes staff. The Council has allowed itself 236 new posts in order to prepare for enlargement. By contrast, it has questioned and reduced the funding of current posts at the Commission.
Parliament drafted a model here which was then enshrined in an agreement. This model requires efforts to be made to frontload certain administrative expenses in 2002, so as to have funds available for Commission staff costs in order to prepare for enlargement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples