Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-09-14-Speech-2-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040914.8.2-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr Nicolaï, Commissioner, as has been said on a number of occasions, 2005 is the first budget year in which enlargement is fully reflected in the figures, and that also applies to the administrative expenditure. Moreover, it is a budgetary year in which reform of staffing and the reform of the financial management are making their mark on developments in all the EU institutions. Last but not least, it is a year in which there is a tight framework for administrative expenditure in accordance with the multiannual programming upon which the EU countries agreed in the financial perspectives, and you in fact said yourself, Mr Nicolaï, that expenditure area 5 is complicated.
The provisional draft budget showed that there was no margin at all remaining. The framework had, in fact, been overstepped and, in its handling of the matter, the Council has implemented cutbacks that provide a margin. The savings have hit what we call the other institutions particularly hard, and that is something at which we want to look in detail in Parliament.
Parliament’s budget has not been touched by the Council because of what is termed the gentleman’s agreement. We each look after our own budget. The Council cut back a little on its own budget. I think it is transparently obvious, however, that the Council’s administrative budget has increased at a rate of almost 5% in relation to the budget for 2004, in which the overall increase for all the institutions is one of 3%. If, now, the Council thinks that savings should be made and a margin exist – and that is something with which I, in a way, agree – it would have been a nice touch if the Council had taken the lead and kept more back from its own budget.
Let us set that aside for the moment, however. The Council has made an overall cut of 1.5% to take account of the fact that we must be able to save because new technology has been introduced and because the institutions cooperate. I can, moreover, only agree that some money can be saved through cooperation between the institutions on the personnel side and in connection with the languages. It may at times, however, be easier for the large institutions than for the small ones to make savings. I think that is something we must look at, and we must, of course, also check carefully that interinstitutional cooperation pays dividends.
I wish to commend the Council for having this time been a little less rigid than it often appears and for having argued more strongly for the cut-backs that have been made. The Council has thus accepted the desired positions on enlargement and on new tasks but has, in return, cut back the amounts by 5%, as Mrs Schreyer pointed out. I do not know whether it is because people are supposed to work for free. I now also think that it is to take account of the fact that a number of the appointments are not progressing as quickly as expected.
Regarding Parliament’s budget for 2005, I can point out that it is also influenced by enlargement and by the reforms of staffing policy and of financial management, and we should also have liked to have seen a number of improvements to MEPs’ conditions. Parliament plans to conduct an information campaign concerning the draft Constitution, and account has been taken of this in the budget. We still do not know whether there will be a new Members’ Statute in 2005 but, on the basis of the signals we are getting, I think it right that we take account of it in the budget.
In common with all the other institutions, Parliament must ensure as cheap and efficient administration as possible but, as has emerged in the first round, Parliament’s budget will constitute 20% of the administrative expenditure in 2005. I think that, regarding the administrative expenditure, the Council and Parliament ought together to find a solution that ensures both a suitable margin and sensible conditions for the Commission and the other institutions.
Even a minor reduction in the rate of increase of the budget may be quite damaging to some of the small institutions, especially those that are at the development stage. I am thinking, for example, of the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor. As part of a solution to the problem in expenditure area 5, I think we should consider whether we might transfer unused funds in the administration budgets to 2005 and if we might make payments in advance, so introducing some room for manoeuvre into the administrative budgets in 2005 and thus creating a margin; or, in other words, that we engage in what, in budgeting jargon, is called the frontloading of unused funds. That is a factor I think we should consider including in the negotiations. There are major problems in expenditure area 5, but I do not think they are so great that the Council and Parliament should not together be able to find a reasonable solution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples