Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-23-Speech-2-147"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011023.7.2-147"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, planning the Budget for next year demands flexibility and provision for the unforeseen. Flexibility and provision for a rapid and appropriate response to new financial demands on the European Union and on a common European policy. The current year has indeed shown what demands can be made on a budget, demands that cannot be planned for or envisaged in advance. We had the BSE crisis and foot-and-mouth disease, we now have the new Global Health Fund
project that has come into being this year, greater demands are being made on our humanitarian aid, not only in Afghanistan, but also because of the escalating situation in the Middle East; Palestine's dependency on external aid, including from Europe, has continually increased.
On this point I must also address a few words to the Council: In your first reading of the preliminary draft of the Budget, you made substantial cuts in the means of payment for the pre-accession aid packages. It is of course contradictory to say on the one hand that we want better implementation and a reduced backlog of payments, and on the other to cut funds so drastically. So I must ask you to keep an open mind on the Commission's reasoning. Of course we have to produce evidence that next year we will need the items we have proposed, but that we shall surely do.
Coming to the topic of enlargement, I, of course, have to mention the ‘frontier regions’, as Mr Costa Neves, the rapporteur, has already done. Of course we all know that the frontier regions, the regions that are at present situated on the borders of the European Union, will profit in the long term from the enlargement of the EU, because they will at last be frontier regions no longer. Despite this, we also know, on the other hand, that there are problems with adjustment. In order to absorb the impact of these, or, to put it the other way around, to work towards making use of the opportunities that will be available, the Commission has proposed this programme for the frontier regions. The Budget provides for an additional EUR 150 million to be made available for transport infrastructure measures in the frontier regions and for a further EUR 15 million for cooperation with small and medium-sized enterprises, an additional EUR 20 million from the INTERREG programme and EUR 10 million more from the youth programme, in order to promote this programme for school students' exchanges and so on in the perspective of enlargement.
Last year, Parliament had adopted, for the 2001 Budget, the new pilot project "Cooperation with small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions with a view to enlargement". I have to say, with the benefit of hindsight, that this was an excellent idea of Parliament's, as a great deal can now be done with this programme. I welcome Parliament's statement that this project should continue to be supported, and I, of course, follow with interest, Parliament's endeavours to activate supplementary funds for this area as a whole.
Mounting demands on European policy, of course, also mean that greater demands are made on personnel and also on the Commission's staff. For years, the Commission has faced ever-increasing tasks which have had to be dealt with without additional human resources. Last year, this brought us to the conclusion that we would have to take stock by analysing our workload. As a result of this, we presented a claim for 717 new posts. The budgetary authority approved 400 additional posts for the Commission last year. Let me take this as an opportunity to thank you again for this on behalf of the Commission.
We also ask for approval of the second tranche of 317 posts, however. I would again point out that some departments are really not lavishly provided for. To take only one example, that of Mr Vitorino's Justice and Home Affairs Directorate-General. It has 189 established posts. The temporary posts bring the total to 215. The Scoreboard for more intensive cooperation in judicial matters decided on in Tampere, is really not a bad thing. Indeed, it is, of course, justified. The post-11 September situation has now shown that it is in the field of more intensive judicial cooperation that joint action is required. Not enough has yet been done about this at European level. We must, therefore, make the effort to move forward in this area, which means, of course, a need for staff to work in this field.
I wish to thank you for your support for the Commission's reforms as a whole, which you have reiterated here today. You have now tabled various amendments which you will probably adopt on Thursday, and the Commission, in consequence, will be asked for further reports, for example on the delayed presentation of the Budget. We will of course do all in our power to satisfy this demand for reports. I must also point out that the Commission has responsibilities as an executive, and so it is also necessary to find a balance. I would, though, like to thank Mr Costa Neves for reiterating your offer of negotiations.
Ladies and gentlemen, the ability to use budgetary policy to react to crises and intercept the unexpected is of course particularly necessary in the field of foreign policy. This was true when we had to work together to find the wherewithal for the reconstruction of Kosovo and incorporate it into the 2000 Budget. Together, we managed it. It was the case last year, when additional funds for Serbia had to be added to the 2001 Budget. As I have already mentioned, we are now in a situation in which a contribution is to be made from the European Budget to the Global Health Fund. We are talking in terms of EUR 60 million for this. We will be presenting to Parliament the relevant proposal for a transfer, in order to use the fisheries reserve, which is still in this Budget, for this purpose among others. When we sat together in our three-way talks last week, you supported making EUR 25 million from the emergency humanitarian aid reserve available for Afghanistan, EUR 7.5 million for Palestine and EUR 7.5 million for the Caucasus region. That shows what current demands are.
I would like to return to one point in particular, which you, Mr President-in-office of the Council, mentioned: I refer to the funds for the common foreign and security policy. Public opinion sometimes misunderstands this and takes it to mean that this is the only budget line where foreign policy is concerned. On the contrary, of course other measures are of a foreign policy nature, that is quite clear. We have, though, this specific line for the common foreign and security policy. The Commission has proposed EUR 35 million for it. Parliament proposed its reduction by EUR 14 million. Now we have to give more careful consideration to precisely why. Parliament does not, indeed, believe this to be an unimportant area; it is far more a question of how decisions are reached, of whether it is actually right that the Council should have sole discretion as to how the funds are applied. We note – I note in my capacity as Commissioner for the Budget – that this principle, according to which the Council decides on the use to which funds are put and the Commission then writes the cheques out, does not work well, as there has to date been under-utilisation in this area, even though everybody knows what demands are made.
I believe we have to talk about the fundamentals of how future finance for the common foreign and security policy is to be secured, quite independently of the 2002 Budget. In my judgment, it is not tolerable that the Council attempts to appropriate ever more operational duties in this area; we need, on the contrary, a common foreign and security policy that will also provide the necessary financial security. There are a whole lot of related issues to be sorted out. We must also consider the people's expectations in this area when we really thoroughly discuss, investigate and then define, what we want to do in future. This demands a common response and, I believe, in many respects a stronger Community response.
To return to the Budget for 2002: the Commission had until now envisaged a EUR 125 million reserve for the fisheries agreement with Morocco. That fisheries agreement has now finally collapsed. In the letter of amendment that the Commission will be discussing next week and then presenting to you in due time, this reserve is released. The funds will be used in part for other fisheries agreements, which have been extended. A large amount will become available.
The EU's budget quite clearly needs the capacity to respond to crises and to surmount them, and we have – I believe – managed in the past two years to draft the Budget so as to cope with this demand. I am optimistic that we will manage it for next year too.
I would say it would be a mistake to budget all these additional funds which have become available from the reserve, at this early stage. I know we are going to need this money. It is not a matter of saving this money but – and I urge this – not already allocating it all. Why do I urge this? Let me now make only one point: battle is at present being waged in Afghanistan against international terrorism, and the European Union is keeping humanitarian aid in readiness for the civilian population, and the amounts involved are not small. The European Union will be providing a total of over EUR 310 million. Let me also, however, point out that the USA was a great donor of funds for humanitarian aid in Afghanistan even before 11 September.
Now, though, we should already be thinking of what the period after this conflict will mean for the region and for the country of Afghanistan, and it is quite clear to me that this means the post-Taliban era in Afghanistan. I think we can all agree that the European Union will then also have an obligation and a responsibility to build up a democratic society, a society that has regard for human rights and makes it possible to live with human dignity. In this Budget, we should make provision in such a way as to enable us to meet this obligation financially as in other ways.
Looking back over two years as Budget Commissioner and on two years of Budget discussions with Parliament and the Council, I can truly say that the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have together managed to meet well the demands made on the European Budget, and I am very optimistic that we will achieve this again for 2002.
(
At this point, I would like, on behalf of the Commission, to thank the rapporteurs for the 2002 Budget, first of all you, Mr Costa Neves, but also Mrs Buitenweg, Mr Seppänen and of course the entire Committee on Budgets for the work you have put in. Anyone who has seen the mountains of amendments that the Committee on Budgets again had to get to grips with this year, will know what is meant by hard committee work.
There is, though, a great deal of work ahead of us, and we have a long way to go. Flexibility and willingness to compromise are required of us all. Of course, I know that the Belgian Presidency of the Council is endeavouring to pass a good EU Budget, which will fulfil all requirements. I thank you, Mr Vande Lanotte, for re-emphasising in your speech this aspect – the willingness to negotiate – for I believe that this demand must also be addressed to the Council, that flexibility is necessary in negotiations and that what is said in the various sittings must not be merely a repetition of what was decided by governments in the capitals. It is just at the point where the Committee on Budgets does not want to respond to increased responsibility and to greater demands with an expanding budget, that our proceedings need flexibility.
I intend now to discuss individual aspects of the European Budget, beginning with agriculture. The Commission's preliminary draft for the budget, which we presented at the end of May, planned for a EUR 1 billion reserve to facilitate a response to the demands of the BSE crisis and foot-and-mouth disease. We have now moved on a bit, and the Commission will next week be adopting the letter of amendment. Developments in the livestock sector have turned out, thank God, to be less dramatic than had at first been feared. We have indeed managed to put aside EUR 400 million from the Budget in this year already for the costs of foot-and-mouth disease. The consequence of this will be that we have to plan for less of an increase for foot-and-mouth in the Amending Budget for next year than had at first been feared. This means that current developments make it possible for us to release the reserve we had proposed in May.
There are, however, developments in some areas of the agricultural sector that still give cause for concern from the budgetary point of view. The key word here is ‘wine’. Here, there is a production surplus whose constant increase is reflected in the financial results. Expenditure in this field has, in the meantime, doubled in two years, with the natural consequence that we have to observe carefully what steps can be taken to stem this overproduction and slow down the growth in the agricultural budget.
The letter of amendment that we will be laying before you concludes by saying that we can release the reserve and that we require less expenditure on agriculture than our calculations had originally provided for, so that a fairly substantial margin remains. At this point, I must however state quite clearly that agriculture ministers must not take this margin to mean that there is plenty of scope for every kind of shiny new expenditure package; this year has shown how quickly such a margin can be required for things which could not have been planned for. So, in my judgment, caution demands that we keep this margin in this area.
I might mention in passing that I welcome the fact that the Committee on Budget's various amendments and resolutions show its desire to look into the agricultural sector more deeply, including with regard to the Midterm Review, which is due next year. We do have an agricultural aid programme for the acceding countries, which I would now like to mention briefly, namely the SAPARD pre-accession instrument. I share your absolute dissatisfaction with this programme not yet having, so to speak ‘arrived’, in the sense of aid payments being able to be made from it for agriculture, and with our still being at this preliminary stage in which the appropriate administrative structures are being set up.
Of course it is important to have absolute control, and certainty that nothing will go wrong, but if this leads to the other extreme of the programme not working at all, then that is not what its inventor had in mind either. You have now, in this Parliament, come to the logical conclusion and said that a new stage in the programme is to be set up, in particular to finance information for the agricultural sector about the EU's future agricultural policy. I must now, despite this, ask you to please reconsider this proposal, which would mean that we would have to create a new legal basis for this programme. All of SAPARD's components would have to be reprogrammed, with even greater delays as a consequence. That cannot be what you meant. Hence my plea to you to negotiate it again with great precision, in order to find room in SAPARD for your demand for more information along the lines of the LEADER programme to be made available for rural areas."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples