Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - Brussels OJ edition

6. Annual political strategy of the Commission for 2003
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is the Commission and Council statements on the Annual Political Strategy for 2003.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 27 February the President, Mr Prodi, told you about the decisions taken by the Commission that day, most importantly the Commission’s policy priorities for 2003 and the Commission’s requirements in terms of human and financial resources.

As we said then, this year, for the first time, the three main institutions will conduct an in-depth dialogue on policy priorities and on the legislative and working programme for the coming year.

The dialogue will be conducted on the basis of the new understanding presented to the Conference of Presidents on 31 January and a new Council consultation procedure.

On 4 March we outlined the policy priorities for 2003 at the General Affairs Council, and we are involved in a structured coordination of work with the Greek and Italian Presidencies so as to achieve the best possible results with medium-term programming.

What we want to do is to base programming on a political dialogue with Member State representatives and citizens, thus using as a foundation the exercise of the Commission’s exclusive right of initiative under the Treaty, in a process in which the different positions participate, and are listened to, as much as possible.

Of course in the final analysis the Commission must, I repeat, shoulder the responsibility laid on it by the Treaty. But we shall exercise that prerogative in a way that is not only politically responsible, but also honest. It should be done out in the light of day, not with a shopping list of “good” intentions negotiated in the backrooms of any of the institutions.

In this respect I would like to urge the President of Parliament and Parliament as a whole to continue in their political efforts to promote the institution of Parliament as the supreme organ of democratic debate and codecision that can rise above questions of mere detail and of simply defending a few specific positions.

As you know, the Commission has set itself three priorities for 2003: firstly, enlargement, secondly, stability and security, and thirdly, a sustainable and socially inclusive economy.

From the time that it took up office, the Commission has been committed to the success of the enlargement process. Because enlargement remains a fundamental priority for the second half of our mandate. From this point of view, 2003 will be a crucial year: we have to prepare to welcome into the Commission all the representatives, all the Commissioners from the new Member States and tackle the fresh challenges facing the Union.

But the Commission has decided to give priority to another area of action: first and foremost, stability and security. Inside the Union our main objective is to speed up the creation of a European area of justice, security and freedom. The fight against crime, in all its forms, including terrorism, and today more than ever it is once again appropriate to repeat that terrorism is included, is, and will remain, at the top of our agenda.

We should continue to pay particular attention to immigration and all the complex effects that it brings with it. Solidarity with those who are trying to find a better life for themselves and their families must go hand in hand with a firm and orderly management of migratory flows at European level. We need collaboration on border controls, exchange of information and common rules to govern the entry and re-entry of immigrants, and we also need to harmonise the rules governing the movement, handling, lives and conduct of all immigrants.

Outside the EU, another of our main priorities is to extend stability and security throughout the continent and to the regions bordering on the enlarged Union. To achieve this, it is once again essential that we strengthen our partnerships with all neighbouring countries.

Our third priority for 2003, Mr President, is a sustainable and socially inclusive economy. There are signs of recovery in the not too distant future. However, the pace and strength of this recovery will also depend on how resolutely the Union implements the Lisbon Strategy. The external dimension of this strategy is particularly important as it can help us to manage globalisation. Our contribution should be directed towards distributing the fruits of recovery to as many countries as possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, another of the Commission’s political priorities is solving the issue of inadequate human and financial resources, which can no longer be deferred. The Annual Policy Strategy does not, therefore, simply identify our main political priorities, but also aims to ensure that the Commission has adequate resources for that task. As President Prodi said on 27 February, this Commission will not undertake any mandate without having the necessary resources. This is quite simply because it would set us up for failure.

At this point we cannot properly prepare for enlargement without more staff. So, after a rigorous screening exercise, the Commission has included in the Annual Policy Strategy a request for 500 non-permanent staff. It will be clear to you that this is a rock-bottom figure, still well below what we need to carry out enlargement-related tasks in 2003.

We all know that the current ceiling for administrative expenses does not allow sufficient resources to prepare for enlargement. So the Commission considers it essential to use the flexibility instrument. It is not enough, but it is all we have.

We also have two other major aims: security and establishing a policy to promote a sustainable economy, which give the Commission more responsibilities. However, to avoid having to ask for yet more staff we have decided to approve initiatives only if they can be carried out by internally redeploying our existing staff or simply by terminating some activities that are being conducted. Mr President, this shows how seriously and rigorously the Commission is committed to its priorities, without ignoring budgetary discipline.

On the financial resources side, I would like to point out that the Commission and the Budgetary Authorities must urgently find a structural solution to the chronic inadequacy of Heading 4, external relations. These tasks cannot be done properly under the current constraints.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today the Commission is setting out the main areas of work. This debate will be followed by debates in each of the committees, which will be attended by the Commissioners along with their members. This will be the time to further define and prepare those main areas of work.

In any case, allow me to thank you on behalf of the whole Commission for your constructive and practical contribution to ensuring the best possible management of our priorities for 2003.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  De Miguel, Council. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Presidency listened with particular interest to the presentation by the Vice President, Mrs De Palacio, of the Commission’s annual policy strategy for 2003, which is the first phase of the cycle of planning and programming of the priorities set by the Commission. The idea is not only to identify those priorities but also to analyse the best way of rationally using the financial and human resources of the Union.

I think it is particularly satisfactory that the priorities identified by the Commission, such as enlargement, stability and security, and a sustainable and socially inclusive economy, are very much in line with those that the Presidency itself and the European Union as a whole have defined and which have been confirmed by the European Council in Barcelona, about which the President-in-Office of the Council, the President of the Spanish Government, has just informed this House. The Presidency welcomes the Commission’s intention to enter into dialogue on the strategy presented, in which the budgetary implications will have to be a fundamental element. There will therefore have to be careful preparation in order to link the debate on the strategic priorities with the budgetary procedure for 2003.

The Council has already had some exchanges of opinion and considers that the General Affairs Council in May could include on its agenda an initial political debate on the Commission’s strategic priorities for 2003. In this way the budgetary aspects, which in the Presidency’s opinion should include the implications that enlargement could have in terms of expenditure such as the need for premises, could be analysed at the most appropriate time within the general framework of the budgetary procedure.

The Presidency is not ruling out the first political debate on the Commission’s strategy being followed, during next autumn, under the Danish Presidency, by a fresh discussion closer to the time when the decision will be taken on the Union budget.

Mr President, the Presidency would like to repeat that it is prepared to support the strategic priorities proposed by the Commission and to look in detail at their budgetary implications at the appropriate time.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elles (PPE-DE). – Mr President, my group welcomes the fact that this debate is taking place this evening because this is the first time that we have been able to have an annual policy strategy debate this early in the process of the budget for 2003. The fact that the Council – although it might not be listening – is actually present in this debate is an important sign that the three institutions should indeed be working coherently together.

My first point is that we are looking at a significant change in the process of doing things where, firstly, we have a definition of Commission policy priorities, secondly we are trying to ensure the right match between tasks and measures for 2003 and, thirdly, that we welcome this idea of having a strengthened institutional dialogue so that we can ensure that the budget is actually collectively decided. Of course, that debate starts here and now in March 2002.

So, are the priorities the right ones? It is still very early in the day to know that but the fact is that we have been able to find: enlargement, stability and security, and the sustainable inclusive economy. It is very difficult to find a subject which does not fall under those three but, in the light of the way in which this has been prepared, we in this House and our committees will find the right way in debates to put forward where we think the priorities lie.

There will surely be debates, for example, on enlargement. Can the Commission, as it says, complete the linguistic and administrative preparations for enlargement during 2003? Can it continue to implement the reform of the Commission so it will be entirely modernised by the end of 2004? These are questions that we are clearly going to have to raise and the same applies to stability and security. The wish is expressed to set up the European Food Safety Agency and get it operational. As far as I know this decision has not yet been taken and, therefore, we need to be clear about what we are trying to do in these debates.

Clearly, in the sustainable inclusive economy there are a whole range of different issues in terms of having the human and financial resources available. This raises the point of your 500 non-permanent posts, which we are going to have to examine in detail.

To conclude, this debate is something which is to be welcomed. This document sets out a number of clear targets to be achieved in which we, in Parliament and the Council, will have to participate. Hopefully we will be able to end the year with the better matching of budget and legislative procedures which we have been asking for.

I would conclude by noting that there is one major point on the availability of financial resources. It clearly says in the document that payments will be restricted, not just for the repayment of outstanding commitments but that payments should be contained elsewhere in the budget so as to make sure we do not go over the ceilings required. Therefore, 2003 will be an exceptionally difficult year but we have started early enough to find the right kind of solutions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Swoboda (PSE).(DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, the Commission defines the broadening of its point of focus as one of its priorities for the year 2003. Mr Elles has perhaps taken a somewhat cynical view of that. Nevertheless, I consider it right and proper, because the impression might otherwise be created that, when we conclude the treaties with the candidate countries in 2002 – and I hope there will be ten of these treaties – everything will have been done and dusted. This, however, is certainly not the case. It would also promote the ratification process and the assent procedure in this House if we had some initiatives from the Commission, particularly if they were scheduled for the year 2003. For example, the new Member States must be prepared for the assumption of full participatory rights within the European Union. Practice is also needed in the peaceful and amicable solution of conflicts. I hope this will not be confined to Cyprus; recent debates in this very House suggest that it is needed between Slovakia and Hungary or between the Czech Republic and Hungary, and even Austria and Germany are to some degree affected by it.

The entire cohesion policy has to be transformed and restructured. Only today we had a hearing on the White Paper devoted to transport. It is good that the Vice-President of the Commission is present. If we really want to develop the trans-European networks and contribute to cohesion, 2003 will be a particularly busy year.

A great deal of assistance must be given to the future Member States to enable them to adapt to Community standards of administration and justice, for example in the fight against fraud. And so 2003, especially in terms of enlargement, will be an absolutely decisive year. That should not be underestimated.

But 2003 will also be a year in which we must try to provide answers to countries that are not candidates for accession but are considering the possibility of applying. Ukraine is one of those countries. We had Mr Shevardnadze here from Georgia too and had some discussions on that point. In Russia too the subject is discussed. In the last hour we have spoken about Croatia with a Croatian delegation. There are questions here that we shall be asked to answer. We have not taken any steps so far to draw definitive borders or to define what the Europe of the Union is to be, because there will still be a Europe beyond our frontiers. So on these questions too we shall have to find answers, or at least provisional answers, in 2003.

Another task for 2003 is the development of some visions as to the nature of our intensified and institutionalised cooperation with those countries that will not be members of the European Union but will not be complete outsiders either. Russia is one example; the countries of the Mediterranean region are others. It is important that we develop new ideas, that we cooperate with those specific countries that are neither in nor entirely out of the European sphere. This particular cooperation will also be very important as a means of fostering stability and security, the second defined priority. In this respect, it has to be clearly stated that Europe must do its homework. We cannot always rely on the United States to intervene. Nor do we want to be constantly dependent on U.S. intervention. One part of this is certainly the need to resist the hegemonic aspirations of the United States, but we in Europe must also learn to assume a more prominent role ourselves, at least in our immediate sphere of interest. In this respect too, 2003 will be an important year, for example with regard to the funding of joint assignments.

Madam Vice-President, in order to do what it intends to do, the Commission naturally needs two things. The first is money, about which my honourable colleague will speak shortly, and the second is innovative governance and regulation. Unfortunately, the Commissioner is speaking at this very moment to the President-in-Office of the Council, whom I also wished to address. Perhaps he would have a moment to listen. Mr Miguel, I wanted to say something to you. Maybe someone could give the President-in-Office a set of headphones so that he can briefly listen to what I have to say. I wanted to say something to you about the question of alternative governance and regulation. I am grateful for the reply that Mr Aznar gave, but may I ask you to convey to him that his answer, following on from a previous reply he gave us in this House, did shed a little light for us on the domain of international cooperation but was certainly not entirely satisfactory. The fact is that the suggestion put forward by the Commission and the speech delivered by Mr Cox, Parliament's President, in Barcelona made it clear that we need a political agreement between the Commission, Parliament and the Council.

(Applause)

When the heads of government deal with other forms of governance – which I welcome – I believe it is only right that the parliamentarians in this House should concern themselves with it too. The Secretary-General may prepare something, but decisions must be taken by political bodies, of which this Parliament is one.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Wallis (ELDR). – Two years ago I spoke in the debate on the annual legislative programme on behalf of the Liberal Group, and I was very critical of the old process which I described as the swapping of shopping lists between Parliament and Commission. Now we have a proper process, a proper interinstitutional dialogue. We have in front of us now a broad strategy tailored to the overriding political goal of enlargement and few of us would disagree with the broad picture and, indeed, the early attempt to attach budgetary implications.

Now the real process will start with detailed consideration in Parliament's committees and this is what is paramount. At last there is meaningful involvement of Parliament and I have no doubt the committees will start to flesh out a final legislative programme. This is a welcome change in our working methods and should allow us to plan and prepare our legislative work much better.

Added to these developments, the Legal Affairs Committee had an historic joint meeting with national parliamentarians, this morning, to discuss the EU legislative process and how Community law is implemented. There can be no doubt that colleagues in national parliaments need fair warning of what we will be dealing with and when. This will allow them to input to us or to hold their ministers in the Council to account in a meaningful way. It was clear from our discussion that those Member States who allow their national parliamentarians early involvement in the process have far less difficulty implementing Community legislation. Their citizens are more comfortable with the process and the final result has increased legitimacy. That is the real connection we are all striving to obtain with our citizens so there are thankfully new winds blowing through our legislative process. The convention may unleash a few more but I am glad to see that those wretched shopping lists have gone at the first blast.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Stevenson (PPE-DE). – The annual policy strategy for 2003 contains some key initiatives on the development of a sustainable and inclusive economy. In particular, the Commission wishes to tackle the mid-term review of the CAP and the reform of the CFP. Together these two major policy areas swallow half of the total EU budget but both the CAP and CFP have failed to meet their core objectives. They have failed to safeguard jobs. They have failed to secure a fair standard of living for our rural communities and they have failed to achieve sustainability.

With that record of failure radical reform is long overdue and I am pleased to see that such proposals are central to the policy strategy for 2003. Indeed, in mid-April, the European Commission will publish its legislative proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy. The centrepiece of this reform package will surely be devolution, devolving fisheries management to key stakeholders in discrete fishing zones. Although these committees will only act in an advisory capacity, at least initially, by involving fishermen, scientists and marine ecologists they will mark a dramatic step towards decentralisation of power, away from Brussels, and back to the grass roots. At a time of collapsing fish stocks, diminishing fleets, lost jobs, decommissioning, tie-ups and lay-offs, such an initiative could not come too soon and is to be greatly welcomed.

In the EU we have far too many fishermen chasing far too few fish. We need an overall cut in the capacity of around 40% of the fleet, but let me make a special plea to the Commission and to the Council. Please do not export our problems of over-fishing and over-exploitation of resources out of the EU and into third countries. Recent case studies in Mauritania and Senegal show that they have depleted stocks. In Mauritania, catches of octopus have halved in the past four years. Some species, such as sawfish, have disappeared altogether. I applaud the policy strategy for seeking sustainable and inclusive objectives but let us remember such objectives must apply outside the EU just as much as inside.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paciotti (PSE).(IT) Mr President, on the subject of the area of freedom, security and justice, the Commission reminds us first of all how the fight against terrorism must always be in the foreground. On this point we can only say that we fully agree. The barbaric assassination of Professor Marco Biagi in Bologna yesterday tragically confirms the need for this commitment. We must, however, declare that we also agree with everything that the President-in-Office, Mr Aznar, has said here today, which is that right now we have the means to overcome terrorism. Besides, all the European institutions have demonstrated great sensitivity and a sense of urgency in adopting the measures demanded by the sudden exacerbation of this kind of political crime.

It is in other sectors that the area of freedom, security and justice is being slow to develop, certainly through no fault of this Parliament and, in fact, not primarily through any fault of the Commission. The European Union does not carry out the duties conferred on it by the Treaty of Amsterdam in the area of immigration and asylum because of the obstacles raised by the Council, its inability to reach an agreement on the Commission’s proposals, and its decisions time after time to adopt individual repressive instruments that impoverish any policy in this area and by themselves make it inadequate.

It is a political problem to recover the will and the ability to use the instruments of civilisation to address this complex problem, which involves international relations, joint regulations and instruments for border control, and taking joint responsibility for the costs we have to meet and also for the objectives of cultural and economic enrichment that the challenge of integration poses for us.

It is also, however, an institutional problem. The unanimity rule is paralysing; the lack of codecision is antidemocratic. The principles on which the European Union is founded – democracy and the Rule of Law, and hence subjection to judicial control – need to be extended to all areas of action relating to the security and freedom of the citizens. Including Europol in the Union’s institutional framework is just one example of this need.

The Commission could very usefully contribute a well-argued set of proposals on these matters to the Convention on the Future of Europe, which has just opened.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lehne (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, once again we have a paper from the Commission on the table, on which I merely wish to say that I am astonished time and again by the consummate skill with which Commission officials can fill twenty-eight pages without saying anything of real substance. This at least has the strategic advantage of ensuring that they cannot subsequently be compelled to honour their commitments. May I say, Commissioner De Palacio, that these remarks naturally do not apply to the chapters for which you are responsible but to other chapters in this and other papers. Nevertheless, this is what we have now, and so I believe we ought to comment on it. As far as the single market is concerned, I can say on the basis of my experience of past years in this House that we are still far from having a single market which works truly effectively in every area.

Major deficits still exist. I believe that the Commission should focus on the elimination of these deficits as one of its top priorities for 2003. In the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, we have just been debating the Directive concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services at second reading stage. It has emerged once again that insurance services are one of those areas in which there is still no functioning single market but only compartmentalised national markets. As I said, there are still considerable deficits.

The Commission’s reports have shown that we have the same problem in other sectors of the economy too with the implementation of freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment. We have a report from the Commission that has already been discussed in committee and will no doubt soon have further repercussions, a report which deals with specific deficits in the realm of freedom to provide services. Time does not permit me to go into the various specific examples, but I would urge the Commission to continue the systematic pursuit of this approach and to ensure that we ultimately have a genuine functioning single European market.

Let me mention one last point that was also discussed this morning at the meeting with members of the national parliaments. In January, Parliament adopted a report on further steps towards convergence in the realm of civil and commercial law. May I ask the Commission, and especially the Commissioners with the relevant portfolios, to forge ahead with these efforts and to present a Green Paper or White Paper as soon as possible to give us a firm idea of the direction in which we are heading. This, I believe, is quite crucial as a means of ensuring that the single market not only exists and operates to the advantage of big business but that consumers and smaller businesses also have the opportunity to make full use of the options offered by the single market. We are building the single market first and foremost for the people of Europe, not for the sole benefit of large companies. Hence my plea to forge ahead with increased vigour and increased energy, even in the face of the opposition which, as experience shows, is always encountered in some Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roth-Behrendt (PSE).(DE) Mr President, I have learned the wisdom and educational value of tempering criticism with praise. For this reason, Commissioner De Palacio, let me begin with a word of praise. It is gratifying that we have finally managed to engage in a very early and timely debate on a strategic plan and that this dialogue between the Commission and Parliament and the specialised committee within Parliament has been launched in sufficiently good time. I refer expressly to these two institutions, because the role of the Council, in my view, may be disregarded. In Barcelona, we saw that the Council sets its own agenda and does what it wants and acts as a higher-grade specialised council. That is why the dialogue between you, Commissioner De Palacio, as the representative of the Commission, and Parliament is the only one that counts in this context.

And then comes the criticism, but I can even present that in a favourable light. Commissioner De Palacio, if you ever see a job vacancy that involves selling a defective product, apply for it. You would give it your best shot. You have tried to do your best for a document that I did not understand. I marvel at anyone who has read this document and understood the message that is locked within its sentences. I reflected on ways of sniffing something out of this text. Would a guide dog help? Or how about a Saint Bernard that can detect signs of life below an avalanche? Some kind of tracker dog is needed, Commissioner De Palacio. The Commission has managed to pepper this document with every conceivable reference. The term ‘consumer protection’ crops up, and the concept of sustainability pops up here, there and everywhere, wherever it can possibly be squeezed in – sustainable transport, a sustainable economy, sustainable everything.

But the document did not reveal to me what you actually intend to do and what your priorities are. At no point could I grasp what your real priorities are. Yes, there is enlargement, and yes, there is sustainable economic growth, perhaps security and stability too. But how you intend to achieve these things, Commissioner De Palacio, is concealed beneath a veneer of ornate prose. So when you return to the Commission, tell your fellow Commissioners what we shall all no doubt be telling them personally: they need to do their homework better next year. The challenge for us as a Parliament is now to take this skeleton you have presented to us and flesh it out with meaningful substance. If this were a piece of schoolwork, it would be returned with the comment ‘A good effort, but improvement is needed for next time’. And that is my message to you.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Goepel (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, painstaking efforts are needed to find any reference at all to the political domain of agriculture and rural development in this 28-page Commission strategy paper for 2003. The word ‘agriculture’ is mentioned all of three times in the course of one three-page section. This is perhaps due in part to the fact that the codecision procedure does not yet apply to agricultural legislation. At the same time, we are called upon for the first time to participate in the strategic assessment of issues such as enlargement, the WTO talks, the development of the Budget and the mid-term evaluation.

On enlargement, the plan is to conclude the accession negotiations with the applicant countries in 2003, and then enlargement could begin in 2004. We are all well aware of the monumental tasks that await the Commission, Parliament and the Council in the areas of agriculture and rural development in 2003. In this respect, enlargement will also be a top priority of agriculture policy in 2003 and will require great negotiating skills. Yesterday’s hearing on this subject in the Committee on Budgets highlighted the amount of work that is still to be done. Close dialogue with the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is essential, as is better use of the resources allocated to pre-accession aid. In the WTO context, agriculture also plays a key role. And so I say to our friends in the Commission that we expect you to provide us with continuous information and consultation on progress in the WTO trade talks. You yourselves refer on page 14 of your crazy paper to a decisive phase in these negotiations.

On the Budget, following the result of the vote on the Färm report, or, to be more specific, the adoption by this chamber of Guideline No 9, care should be taken to ensure that the amended mid-term evaluation is taken into account as far as possible in the 2003 Budget. This quite simple precept will cause huge headaches, particularly in view of the fact that the Member States are becoming increasingly accustomed to receiving substantial ring-fenced rebates of unused resources from the agricultural budget; these bonuses are particularly welcome, since they can save some countries from the prospect of an admonitory letter from Brussels.

The strategic imperative for 2003 must therefore be full and more efficient utilisation of the agricultural budget, including flexible use of resources for new rural development programmes. One very important requirement is that quality must play a more important role in the allocation of aid under the common agricultural policy. Even non-farmers can see the point of compensatory payments that are based on quality.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Färm (PSE). (SV) Mr President, as rapporteur for this year’s budget, I have a number of matters to address in that connection.

First of all, I am really not as critical as Mrs Roth-Behrendt. I think it is important for us now to acquire an annual policy strategy which also constitutes the Commission’s guideline for next year’s budget. At present, all the institutions issue their guidelines in the spring, and the hope now exists that the Commission will also base its draft budget on ideas from the Council and Parliament. If so, that would be a clear improvement.

Secondly, quite a few MEPs have pointed out that we need to strengthen the link between the Commission’s legislative programme and the issues concerning the budget. Up until now, we have all too often ended up in a position in which we have obtained draft laws and proposals for new programs and expenditure and for setting up new institutions and so on, with no account being taken of the budgetary process and the financial consequences. It is especially in the sphere of foreign policy that a variety of promises are given. There is still a fair amount to be done in this area, but this year’s process is nonetheless a step in the right direction.

Thirdly, we can at least be pleased about the section on interinstitutional cooperation. If it is going to be possible to create an EU that operates well, such cooperation and confidence are crucial.

It is therefore a source of deep concern to us to learn now that discussions of the new budget regulation, designed to reduce Parliament’s influence, are being held within the Council. The Council’s budget committee is discussing reducing our opportunities to place sums in the reserve and to influence supplementary and amending budgets and so forth. If the Council continues along those lines, it will call the institutional balance into question in a way that Parliament will never accept voluntarily.

Fourthly, I want to address a factual matter. It is gratifying that all the institutions are now highlighting enlargement, which is of course the most important task for our time. I hope that, by no later than the budget conciliation in July, we shall be able to agree upon how we are to handle next year’s administrative expenditure in such a way as to facilitate the preparations, partly by providing aid to construction, working on the language issues, deciding what staff need to be appointed and determining what regulations need to be drawn up if we are to be able to accept observers in our political groups.

If all the institutions contribute by regarding these matters as important, we shall in actual fact have a chance of reaching such an agreement by no later than July. That would be an enormous boost.

Finally, I hope that, before the negotiations are completed, the Council and the Commission will also institute an exhaustive discussion with Parliament concerning the long-term economic consequences of enlargement. I really do believe in enlargement, but we must not conceal from the taxpayers the fact that there is a price to pay. That is a matter which must be taken seriously.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, although it may have no effect, given the amount of movement in the House, I would like to thank you all for taking the time to read the twenty-eight pages, including Mrs Roth-Behrendt. I think that the twenty-eight pages succeeded in highlighting the positive elements, as Mr Swoboda said. Because there are some tables in Chapter 3, paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, that give more specific details on the political proposals for the coming year.

I would like to say that we are at the beginning of the year; this is the start of the period of discussion and dialogue with the different committees by the different Commissioners, and then we will continue working so that throughout the autumn we can have debates, concluding the process in November with the formal presentation by the President of the Commission in the plenary.

Once again, I would like to congratulate you all and thank you for your work, and hope that this experience, which we are beginning with this debate today, will benefit the functioning of the institutions, Parliament, the Council and the Commission. I hope that it will produce good results and that, in the end, we will feel that we have taken a step forward in interinstitutional cooperation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Swoboda (PSE).(DE) Mr President, since I made a critical remark about the statements made by Prime Minister José María Aznar, I should like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council, who is represented here, for having explained – at least to me – that it is incumbent upon Parliament to send our political representatives to the interinstitutional working party. That has clarified the matter, and I wanted to pass on this explanation to the House.

(Applause)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MR COX
President

President. – That concludes the debate.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy