Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.6.2-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Färm, Mr Stenmarck, ladies and gentlemen, we have taken a massive step towards the enlargement of the European Union with the positive result of the referendum in Ireland. It is now up to the Council to agree on a common negotiating position for financing issues at the summit this week in Brussels, that is to say how much in the way of resources can be included in the European Union Budget for the new Member States as from 2004.
As regards the budget for external policies, however, I am not in complete agreement at present. One example here is the Global Health Fund to fight diseases such as AIDS. Of course there is no denying that the Commission rates the importance of this global fund very highly. But the issue now is what level of appropriations is needed for 2003, and also what the source of the funding is to be. The Commission has once again proposed that half of the appropriations should be financed from the European Development Fund. I would like to emphasise once again that by far the greatest proportion of appropriations for this global fund has up to now been financed by the European Union, that is to say partly from Community resources and partly from the Member States' bilateral resources. One priority area in the budget for external policies is aid for the Balkan states. A new feature of the 2003 budget is the addition of appropriations for joint police missions to Bosnia. The Commission has already for this reason added a further EUR 10 million to the Common Foreign and Security Policy budget. Parliament's proposal is that this additional sum should be removed again, or rather not inserted in the first place. I am, however, sure that by the time we get to the second reading of the Budget we will have been able to find a way to finance this important area of external policy.
In relation to the new challenge for the EU Budget of providing appropriate aid for Afghanistan, the Commission welcomes the fact that the Committee on Budgets has agreed to insert a special budget heading. We also welcome this because the task of providing financial assistance to Afghanistan will of course recur in the budget over the next few years. It is, however, precisely because of this that we believe this financing should have a regular place in the budget, and should not be provided by calling on the flexibility reserve. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that there is a continuing need to use the flexibility reserve, not least to find a financial solution in the coming year for the issue of fisheries reform and to provide Portugal and Spain with the remaining resources needed to restructure their fishing fleets.
If Parliament's proposal is adopted, the 2003 Budget will represent 1.05% of the combined economic output of all the Member States, that is to say the same level as this year. I am mentioning this because there are still some very contentious debates going on about the Brussels Summit. However, if the proposal on the table for the financing of enlargement in 2004, 2005 and 2006 is adopted, this ratio between the EU budget and European economic output, even with another ten members, will not again reach the level it stood at in the mid-1990s.
If we consider once again the size of the EU Budget and how small the increase currently envisaged is in view of enlargement, then I must say I do not really consider that the debate currently raging is actually justified. If anything, there is a danger that discussions on financing will focus too much on individual issues and perhaps get bogged down in them. We should, however, bear in mind that the enlargement of the EU is a very good investment in the future, an excellent investment. In view of this I wish at this point to appeal to the Heads of State and Government to agree on a common position in Brussels so that, following the yes vote in Ireland, we can stick to the timetable for the enlargement of Europe.
This once again clearly signals that the 2003 Budget will very probably be the last budget for a Union of 15 Member States. So we are pretty much on the eve of enlargement. That means that the 2003 financial year will not only present further challenges for the candidate countries, but also for the European institutions that need to make preparations. There have been some serious differences here between the Council and the Commission, because the Council only approved additional posts for itself for 2003 in the run-up to enlargement, but rejected additional posts for the Commission.
So it is all the more incomprehensible that, in its own preparations for the Brussels Summit, the Council repeatedly highlights its expectations of the Commission for 2003 in terms of preparation for enlargement, for example in relation to the Structural Funds. But that requires staff too, of course. So the Commission has all the more reason to appreciate the fact that the European Parliament has taken the initiative to ensure that the Commission's requests are met.
I would like to express my respect for all the rapporteurs, and in particular Mr Stenmarck and Mr Färm, for the way in which they have not only gained support for frontloading, but have also vehemently fought, every step of the way, for it to be implemented. I would like to thank you for your comments, Mr Stenmarck. You made a promise and you have kept it, which we really appreciate. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks, on behalf of the Commission, to the rapporteurs and to the Committee on Budgets. This idea will now be implemented by means of an interinstitutional rectifying budget, and the very fact that there is an interinstitutional rectifying budget is an achievement in itself. So thank you for your support.
Let me turn now to expenditure on the common agricultural policy. As you know, the Commission has pursued the same line as the European Parliament, that is a restructuring of market-related expenditure and market organisation so as to strengthen support for rural areas. The Commission made this subject a key element of its mid-term review proposals. We cannot, however, agree to these proposals being implemented now, as the rules still prevent this and an increase in resources for the rural development programme go beyond the current provision in the Financial Perspective.
You have, however, also proposed another amendment, and you, Mr Färm, stressed this again just now, to the effect that the budget headings for export refunds for animals should be subdivided so that refunds for live animals can be identified separately. I think that this could be considered, as long as the relevant legal bases allow it. I share your concern about the need for enhanced animal protection and it is also very much shared by the Commission as a whole.
A third of the Budget will once again be devoted to structural policy next year. There was a debate in plenary in September about the implementation of the Structural Fund programmes, and Mr Färm has one again spoken very clearly about this.
You very emphatically call for the procedures to be simplified, to allow Member States to draw down funds more quickly and more simply. My colleague responsible for this, Mr Barnier, held a seminar on this in order to establish what scope there is here. This was a further indication of the fact that the Commission is very committed to this issue. However, we also need the Member States' cooperation, and it simply is not good enough if the Member States' estimates of the level of Structural Fund appropriations they implement in a year, that is how much they can actually use, are as wide of the mark as they have been in recent years. As far as this is concerned, I have to say that we have of course to jointly check whether the increased budget appropriations proposed here by Parliament are necessary for the Structural Funds next year.
The Commission is largely able to support the amendments proposed by the Committee on Budgets as regards appropriations for internal policies, for example in the case of measures in favour of immigration and asylum policy, measures in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises, and the proposal in the area of information policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples