Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-05-Speech-2-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060905.22.2-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the work on the 2007 budget confirms the old adage that, while procedures may be repeated, there is no such thing as a routine budget. In order to round off what our rapporteur, Mr Elles, has said, I would like to mention a few of the problems which we will face in 2007.
The first is not the most important, as it is a technical, analytical problem. Once again, it is basically the problem of the comparability of annual budgets. This is a budget for 27 Member States. This problem of comparability became acute when the geography of the European Union changed in 2004/2005. However, it still exists and I agree with the view that if spending on Bulgaria and Romania is not separated, a full comparison between the annual budgets will not be possible.
The second issue, which is the most serious, was highlighted by Mr Elles, and is as follows: to what extent should the first year of the new financial perspective encourage us to not reflect so much on the form of the budget but on the budget priorities, namely how much continuity and how much change there should be in this first year of the new financial perspective?
I note a certain amount of continuity on the part of the Council, including continuing horizontal cuts, this time supported more by the so-called activity statements. I note the traditionally privileged status of the Common Foreign and Security Policy
However, I would like to clearly highlight the fact that the European Parliament rapporteur has a very strong mandate, from both the Commission and the whole European Parliament, to examine individual budget lines and check them from the point of view of what is known as cost-benefit analysis. This is a very strong mandate and a very strong principle which will inform the first reading of the 2007 budget in the European Parliament. This round of talks will begin tomorrow, after agreement with other committees, of course.
2007 is a problem in terms of implementing a new generation of multi-annual programmes based on new regulations and a new set of instruments for foreign trade. The question remains: to what extent does a potential slip-up justify the careful budgeting for 2007, something that is very visible in terms of expenditure? That was likely to have been the main reason for the point of departure being so low this time around. Spending was already below 1% of GDP in the initial draft by the Commission. The Council made further cuts of the order of 1 billion 757 million euro, which creates an extraordinary gap between the 2007 budget and the limits defined in the financial perspective for that year. In our opinion, this is not enough to fund the aims of the European Union. The European Union’s ambitions as an international player, that is, on the international arena, in terms of funding research and development make this fact clear.
The implementation of next year’s budget is also a matter of quality and motivation in terms of administrative procedures, and in this respect we are very rigorously examining and analysing the Council’s approach to the issue of employment and salaries in the European Commission. We accept the European Commission’s warning that the cuts in salaries which amount to over EUR 50 million will make recruitment, particularly from the new Member States, virtually impossible. The Council has not denied this strongly enough, and therefore the problem will be raised in the first reading in Parliament, as it is not only a question of proportionality in terms of employment, but also a problem of efficiency and motivation for the administration which is facing new challenges.
The differences over the approach to the 2007 budget became very clear, albeit in a friendly atmosphere, during the conciliation procedure on 14 July. A sign of these differences was, for example, the fact that no common statements were made by Parliament and Council. Of course, we also have time to agree the 2007 budget.
For me, and this is my final point, it was very important to receive Minister Wideroos’ assurance which, while only verbal, is based on what was jointly included in the interinstitutional agreement, that is, that she will undertake to do all that lies within her power to ensure that the new financial regime will come into force on 1 January 2007. It is clear that the efficient implementation of the budget for 2007 depends on whether there is a new financial regime to accompany it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples