Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-09-14-Speech-2-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040914.8.2-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur for Parliament, I would like to welcome the Council’s draft general Budget for 2005. Like any political agreement reached following long talks amongst the governments of the 25 Member States, the result of its first reading is worthy of praise and consideration, but in our view entirely insufficient.
Any responsible institution would want to put an end to this situation. The N+2 rule that the Commission mentioned was created to improve execution and to speed up the completion of projects. In order to absorb these RALs, payments should be increased rather than decreased, unless the aim is simply to make savings for national treasuries.
From the 2000 budget EUR 44 500 million has been returned to the Member States in unexecuted appropriations – more than the whole of the Structural Funds budget for 2005 – and that return must not be seen as a saving for anybody. Returning appropriations to the Member States because they have not been able to spend them means squandering the added value of spending on Community policies which have been approved in order to contribute to growth and employment in the Union.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the first real budget with 25 Member States. The Union has more challenges to meet and more needs to cover than in previous years. Managing to do more with the money available than in other years is the responsibility of the three institutions and, naturally, my responsibility. I wish the dialogue between the three institutions every success and I would like to acknowledge the ability demonstrated so far by the Dutch Presidency.
The Council has taken a strictly accounting approach at first reading. If Parliament were to accept – and it is not going to accept – this view on the part of the Council in its current form, it would be a triumph of national accounting over European policy, and I do not believe this would be good either for the Union or for its Member States.
We European Members of Parliament are well aware of national budgetary difficulties resulting from insufficient economic growth, and we know that the Stability Pact imposes very clear rules with regard to controlling budgetary deficits. The figures are, however, clear: in recent years, national budgets have increased by 22% while over the same period the Community budget has increased by 9%. That is to say, the European Parliament is much more fertile ground for budgetary austerity and rigour than national parliaments themselves at times.
The Members of the European Parliament – including myself – know that Community policies have great added value in terms of growth and employment, in relation to Structural Funds, research and external cooperation, for example.
We fear that the Council’s approach at first reading is simply to create artificial margins in categories which do not correspond either to the real needs of the Union or commitments to third parties, not even with the political will expressed each year in the budgetary vote in December.
In general, in order to issue a more reasoned opinion in relation to the European Parliament’s reaction to this draft from the Council, I would prefer to wait to receive the amendments approved in the competent committees and in the political groups.
Nevertheless, I would like to make a few further points. Firstly, as general rapporteur, I believe that the reduction of the ceilings in the categories must determine the Union’s budget. The European Commission had already incorporated this reduction into its draft preliminary budget and in general terms – though not in every respect – we agree with the Commission’s analysis. The margins created by the Commission in categories 3, 4 and 5 are politically much more realistic than the margins created by the Council, which is something of a paradox.
Secondly, the situation of the agencies. It is time for the Council to accept an undeniable fact: the decentralised agencies need sufficient funds if they are to be implemented and to function properly. If the political decision is taken to create agencies, the political decision must be taken to maintain them. The Council’s position is inconsistent here, and I am prepared to propose innovative solutions for resolving once and for all this double political language between commitments and compliances.
Thirdly, the issue of payment appropriations. In order to keep below the 1% of the Union’s gross national product – so dear to certain Member States – the Council has cut EUR 4 300 million. Commitments still to be paid as of 31 July stand at EUR 122 000 million. In relative terms, the categories with the most RALs are, in this order, 7, 4 and 2, the latter being the largest in terms of volume."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples