Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-05-Speech-2-170"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060905.22.2-170"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, on 17 May the Commission presented the draft budget. I am not going to repeat our position. Today I should like to concentrate on presenting to Parliament the Commission’s evaluation of the Council’s first reading.
I should like to confirm that we very much appreciate Parliament’s attitude and the way it has worked on the 2007 budget, especially the method which is to be used by the rapporteur in respect of cost-benefit analyses and impact assessments of all proposals from the Council and the Commission. We support this. That means any proposal on radical reforms in any area. We would be happy to have a consistent approach with respect to cost-benefit analyses and impact assessments on any policies, including the recruitment of administrative staff and administrative expenditure.
Therefore, today I should like to say that we are still sticking with our proposal. We think it is realistic and grounded. We have evaluated the requirements for the 2007 budget as far as realistically possible. However, to our surprise, the Council has made disproportionately large cuts in administration at all the European institutions, including the Commission. From this point of view, there are two elements and two separate problems.
Mr Lewandowski has mentioned that in the 2007 budget the new Member States have been given 800 posts, but the EUR 56 million for salaries has been reduced. That means that the Commission will not be able to recruit anyone at all. The Council would like to speed up recruitment at the Commission, yet recruitment at the Commission will not be speeded up at all; the Commission will not recruit at all in 2007 if this proposal is maintained. That means somebody here is not telling the truth.
The second element of the budget which completely surprised the Commission was that the Council intervened in the annual budget procedure by coming forward with a multiannual approach, practically politically reopening the interinstitutional agreement which all three institutions signed in May. It is a seven-year approach to administrative costs and expenditure – a period of time which will cause the Commission to lose a minimum of three directorates-general, and will upset the geographical balance which, in line with the wishes of the Council and Parliament, the institution is supposed to keep in mind. The balance in the linguistic approach will also be upset. In addition, the structures and human resources necessary for achieving the new policies that the Council and Parliament have called for, including the new financial perspective, will not be forthcoming.
We were therefore surprised by the Council’s attitude, which is not based on impact assessments or cost-benefit analyses: it is based solely on arithmetic. This goes against what we are trying to achieve here at the very beginning of the new financial perspective, i.e. how we are looking at the budget and how we are looking at the efficiency of the ways we use money in the European Union.
I should like to point out to Parliament today that we are promising to cooperate openly and fully with Parliament in preparing its opinion for first reading. In July I promised to provide you with technical information on the proposal, which I shall do this week, hopefully by Friday. You will receive two notes on the 2007 budget and on the proposal for 2007-2013. I hope that will help all of us to achieve the final results.
I should like to call on all those involved to be prudent, to make significant progress in respect of impact assessments, and to achieve whatever is necessary for all Community programmes to be fulfilled."@en1
|
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples