Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-24-Speech-2-201"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061024.31.2-201"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the budget we are presenting today is a responsible and sensible budget. We have not accepted the Council’s indiscriminate cuts to administrative expenditure but we have, on the other hand, put EUR 50 million from the Commission’s administrative budget into the reserves and demanded a clearer explanation of trends in certain areas of expenditure. We must not close our eyes to the facts when we establish the budget, but go into details and ensure that precisely those resources that are necessary are available.
In that connection, I wish to thank our rapporteur, Mr Elles, for the approach he has chosen to adopt in this year’s work on the budget. I am thinking of the idea of ‘value for money’, following on from criticism by the Court of Auditors and in cost-benefit studies and other reports. In particular, I would draw attention to the cost-benefit studies as a constructive innovation, offering us a far better survey of, for example, trends in the Commission’s information and communication policy and the development of the common foreign and security policy.
Specifically on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I would emphasise the need for adequate resources for the legal and asylum policy and for the foreign policy. There is a sharp contrast between the fine words uttered by EU Heads of Government in formal speeches and the resources that their finance ministers are prepared to make available. At the same time as Heads of Government emphasise that the EU should present a united front in refugee policy and strengthen the common border management agency, FRONTEX, finance ministers make a point of cutting back on appropriations to the agency. Clearly, this is inconsistent. I am pleased, moreover, that we have had to reach agreement to sort these matters out.
In connection with the financial perspective, it is quite clear that the EU’s foreign policy was badly handled. That the budget we are presenting today is clearly a responsible one is shown, however, by the fact that Parliament has not tried to challenge the interinstitutional agreement. We have established a budget within the framework of the agreement. Foreign policy is an area that will demand close attention over the next few years, however. I think that, especially in regard to our close neighbours in Central and Eastern Europe, we in the EU have an obligation to promote stronger economic development and to encourage a view of democratic development as something hopeful and positive. The money needs to be used well, and we therefore ask that the Commission ensure that the new programmes take account of the Court of Auditors’ criticism of the aid to Russia.
With regard to Parliament’s and other institutions’ budget, my group has adopted the approach of our rapporteur, Mr Grech, whom I should also like to thank for a constructive and substantial piece of work. It means that the budget is somewhat below the level originally announced by the institutions but, after thorough analysis of each individual institution, a position has been adopted on what is in reality needed and a suitable margin thus created. We have had a number of debates about whether Parliament needs 20% of the total administrative expenditure, and we have ended up with a figure that is rather on the small side. My group supports the policy of recent years to the effect that Parliament should purchase the buildings it uses, but we must ensure that we have a clearer overall view of what resources are needed for buildings over the next few years."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples