Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-20-Speech-2-239"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040420.9.2-239"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, when I first came in and looked around I thought people were actually here for this debate, but then I suddenly realised that former Commissioner Barnier was about to make his speech!
Members have in front of them a report not just from the Committee on Budgets, but one that has attempted to take on board the opinions of the other committees. In doing so, we have tried to include at least three or four priorities which they consider to be paramount priorities, and then ask the Commission and the Council, in paragraph 31, to at least look at all the Annexes to get a feel for what the other committees are trying to do. I say that because I have had a letter from one of my fellow chairmen actually complaining about this procedure, but we thought it was a fair way of proceeding and one that would give everyone a chance to have their say.
The thrust of the report is not to make concrete proposals, but to lay down guidelines for the next Parliament. The idea is that we in the present Parliament should not do anything definitive, but should at least give an opinion how we think negotiations should proceed in the next Parliament. My job as rapporteur for this report, rather than as chairman, is to defend the position of the Committee on Budgets. As a result, I am not here to recommend acceptance of any of the 22 amendments that we have before us, although I feel Amendments Nos 3 and 5 do help in the wording. I will leave such decisions to my political group.
I am fascinated by the amendments from my British Conservative colleagues in the name of Mr Bradbourn and others, especially Amendments Nos 17, 18 and 19. Amendments Nos 17 and 18 ask that there be a maximum of 1% GNI for the Community budget, and Amendment No 19 is about renationalisation of the structural funds. As a British Labour Member I very much welcome the approach of my Conservative colleagues, who are now endorsing Gordon Brown's proposals. I am sure this will please him!
I am still confused about Amendments Nos 20 and 21, but will speak to Mr Bradbourn about those later. However, whilst I may welcome them as a British Labour Member, I am here not as a British Labour Member but as a rapporteur for the Committee on Budgets, and cannot support them. As I said, Amendments Nos 17 and 18 asked for a maximum 1% GNI for own resources. My preference is for the existing paragraph 17, which states that we should evaluate our political priorities, then their needs, and only then should Parliament decide on what the level of own resources should be.
When President Prodi first presented the Commission's proposals I made the point that between 1988 and 2002, under the existing financial perspective, the amount of payments had indeed averaged out at 1% of GNP. Of course, if the average is 1% there will have been times when that 1% was exceeded. If you look at paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the report, it actually says that we should be looking at the priorities and then deciding what that average overall should be.
It could well be that after making the evaluation and looking at the political priorities we end up with a figure of 1% of GNI. Paragraph 19 would seem to indicate a higher figure, but looking at this sensibly and pragmatically, we could get any figure and 1% cannot be ruled out. However, that is a decision not for this Parliament, but for the new one, as is the timeframe. The reason for this is to ensure the involvement of the new members from the ten new Member States, along with the ten new Commissioners. As I said earlier, this report does not aim to take decisions, but to enable the new Parliament to do so while also, along with the new Commission and the Council, to at least take note of what we are saying.
To repeat one other point I made in the first debate on this issue, I would remind the Council that the Interinstitutional Agreement is only an interinstitutional agreement when the institutions keep to it between themselves. In other words, Parliament is a key player in this. It is not a bit-part player in the process. It is a major player and I hope the other institutions recognise that.
This is probably the last time I will address this Parliament as chairman of the Committee on Budgets. I would like to say what a great privilege and what a great job it has been."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples