Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 1 December 2011 - Brussels

4. 2012 budgetary procedure: joint text (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Francesca Balzani, José Manuel Fernandes, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee in the framework of the 2012 budgetary procedure (13110/2011 – C7-0247/2011 – 17470/2011 – 2011/2020(BUD)) (A7-0414/2011).

  Alain Lamassoure, Chair of the Committee on Budgets. – (FR) Mr President, as we have seen, the previous debate did have some bearing on the outcome of the negotiations on the 2012 budget. As the President-in-Office of the Council is with us – and let me also welcome the Commissioner, Mr Lewandowski – I would like to say how pleased I am that an agreement has been reached in conciliation on the 2012 draft budget.

This agreement will allow us to conclude the budgetary procedure within the deadlines set out in the Treaty and implementing texts. I would like to thank the Commission and congratulate the young Polish Presidency on achieving unanimity within the Council. The agreement refers both to the 2012 budget and to draft amending budget No 6/2011. I would also like to congratulate our rapporteurs, who will tell us which are the key points for the European Parliament within this budget.

In this period of crisis, which we have discussed at length, we have succeeded in reconciling two apparently contradictory objectives, both equally necessary: on the one hand, reducing operating costs, and, on the other, maintaining essential future spending in order to support economic activity and guarantee future competitiveness. Yet, at the same time, there are two lessons that we need to learn from this achievement.

Lesson one is that we cannot continue to negotiate backwards, starting with payment appropriations, when political choices translate into commitment appropriations. Parliament wants the three institutions to work together with cool heads in the coming months in order to examine how the appropriations are spent and the precise requirements, line by line. This should ensure that our examination of the 2013 budget will be based on full information, avoiding another budget freeze with adjustments across the board for the third year running.

The second lesson is that we have proved that we can no longer fund the European budget from national contributions. Next Monday, we will begin negotiations between Parliament and the Council, together with the Commission, on the new own resources needed to fund the European budget and reduce national contributions.

For Parliament’s part – I have said it before and I say it again here formally – there can be no agreement on the next financial framework without a political agreement on going back to financing from own resources. Here and there, I hear loud voices calling for budgetary federalism. This is the best opportunity for those making those strong calls to translate their dreams into a European reality.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  Francesca Balzani, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 18 November, Parliament and the Council reached a common position on the budget three days ahead of the conciliation deadline. This is a good sign: at a time of great uncertainty and difficulty, it means that the European institutions want to look to the future first; it is also a decision to shoulder their responsibilities.

From the start, Parliament has put the EU 2020 strategy, the major crisis-prevention strategy for future growth and wellbeing, at the centre of the budget. Drafting a budget is no easy task for anyone today, not even for Europe, but Parliament made a choice, which was fully accepted during the conciliation. Thus, we have more resources for growth, research, employment, lifelong learning, immigration policies and international policies in Europe.

Payments, however, fared badly in the conciliation. They fared badly, which is nothing new. Indeed, it is unfortunately the case that there is strong disagreement – clear and ongoing disagreement – over the issue of payments between Parliament and the Commission on one side, and the Council on the other. Disagreement that will have to be solved, that will have to be overcome, because this is a situation that we clearly cannot tolerate any longer. Unfortunately, however, conciliation is not the ideal forum in which to open discussions, in which to open conciliations, because – and the experience of the past year has clearly taught us this – opening major discussions in the strict and rigorous confines of the conciliation procedure is liable to simply jeopardise the forthcoming budget.

The Commission’s faultless projections of funding requirements – and I want to emphasise this point – the Commission’s extremely authoritative and reliable projections, which Parliament endorsed, are thus rendered useless. I hope that this can be resolved.

It is clear, in my view, that we will not find a permanent solution to this problem until the European budget is equipped with its own resources. However, what we, as Parliament, certainly can do – in line with the commitment to intervene promptly should payment needs increase during the year, which we signed and attached to the budget – what we certainly can and must do is to strive to ensure that this commitment is honoured and, above all, to work together to ensure that this commitment is not a victim, in terms of its form and schedule, of the next budgetary conciliation, because what we must do – and this is the decision that we made with ITER, that we made this year on the subject of payments – is to refrain from opening conciliations within the conciliation procedure.

I should like to thank everyone: all my fellow Members who made an enthusiastic contribution to the drafting of this budget; the Polish Presidency, which played an important role and provided impetus; and especially the Commission, Commissioner Lewandowski, who maintained an exceptional balance throughout the entire delicate conciliation procedure. Then there are the policy advisors from our groups, and finally our assistants, who worked long into the night on this task.

  José Manuel Fernandes, rapporteur. – (PT) Mr President, first of all, please allow me to thank all those who have worked on the budgets of Parliament and the other institutions. I would thank the political groups and shadow rapporteurs for their work, and I would thank the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their excellent collaboration and excellent work, and for the results we have achieved. I would also highlight our excellent collaboration with the Bureau of the European Parliament and the work we have carried out, and the support we have had from the secretariat of the Committee on Budgets. I would stress the involvement of officials of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and, specifically, the excellent technical work by the adviser, Nicole Witts.

I would also point out the rigorous work that all the institutions have done on their administrative budgets, despite the costs of Croatia’s accession, in connection with the entry of another 18 Members to this House, the existence of new institutions and the consolidation of others, such as the European External Action Service, and as regards new tasks and competences. Despite all this, the administrative and operating budgets of all the European Union institutions have increased by just 1.3%. Given inflation and given the new commitments, this has only been possible with rigorous and efficient management, and with structural changes.

The 2012 administrative budget for the institutions has grown negatively. I welcome the results of the conciliation that took place on Friday, 18 November, regarding the budgets of the European Parliament and of the other institutions. The Council adopted the European Parliament’s entire proposal on the administrative and operating costs of all the European institutions, and acknowledged that our proposal was rigorous and fair. The hard work, austerity and balancing of budget cuts, on the one hand, and the minimum necessary for each institution to run properly, on the other, has been worth it.

There is a fact that should always be remembered: all the administrative and operating costs of all the European Union institutions correspond to less than 6% of the EU budget. This means that more than 94% of the Union budget goes on investment. It should also be remembered that the European Union budget, despite representing only 1% of Union GDP, provides an important stimulus; a benefit, through which coordinated solidarity is possible. This budget should therefore be increased, in particular during times of crisis like these.

As such, I welcome the increase in funds intended for economic growth, for training, for research and for young people. However, I shall finish by warning the Council of a concern: it is important to meet commitments in times of credibility; it is important to meet payment expenditure, particularly when it relates to cohesion policy.

  Jacek Dominik, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, this is the first time we have had to negotiate the European budget during a financial crisis as serious as the one we are experiencing at this very moment. For the first time, we have succeeded in bringing this process to a positive conclusion in less time than provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon. This is a great success for the European Union as a whole and for all the institutions involved. In this respect, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the European Parliament as a whole and, most of all, Mr Lamassoure and the rapporteurs Ms Balzani and Mr Fernandes, Commissioner Lewandowski and the entire team, for approaching the discussion this year in such a constructive and responsible manner, resolving the major problems faced by the European Union in the coming year.

I would like to stress that throughout the whole process of negotiating the 2012 budget, there were no serious disputes as to the priorities of the European Union which should be financed in the future. Instead, there was a very precise and professional discussion concerning the funds which are needed to implement the priorities and how these priorities should be arranged so that European society gains the most favourable impression of EU policies, and so that these policies are directed primarily at issues where they are most eagerly anticipated.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that, in response to this spirit of reconciliation which prevailed in the course of our debates, the Council approved all the priorities proposed by Parliament, particularly regarding commitment appropriations. Similarly, I would like to thank you for the European Parliament’s very positive and tolerant attitude towards, and full understanding of, the priorities proposed by the Council, in particular, in relation to the payment appropriations. Parliament has shown itself to be fully open to the needs of the Member States and their budgetary situations, and to the crisis which prevails today, and has displayed a full understanding of the issues while studying the Council’s proposals in this regard.

I also have the pleasure today of informing you that yesterday, during the meeting of the ECOFIN Council, the 2012 budget was adopted unanimously, while a majority voted was obtained in favour of letter of amendment No 6 to the 2011 budget, so, as far as the Council is concerned, the entire budgetary procedure for the year 2012 has been completed successfully.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I welcome, in the name of the Commission, the agreement on the 2012 budget. This timely agreement is a positive and reassuring signal, because this is about continuity and stability at this very unstable time in Europe, with so many question marks. I would also say openly that the forecasts and priorities on the part of Parliament are very responsive to the needs of Europe today. It is about competitiveness, it is about migration, and it is about additional neighbourhood policy needs, including some frontloading for Palestine also.

This timely agreement reached on the 2012 budget will make for timely implementation of that budget. This is really very important. What is also important is that the increase in operational expenditure is well balanced by self-restraint in administration. It has rightly been mentioned already that this is less than 6% of the budget, but the institutions are nonetheless making every effort to restrain administrative expenditure in the European Union. This time, it is lower than in the draft budget, although we have to plan to welcome Croatia also into our family of 27 – increasing to 28 – nations. I have to congratulate Ms Balzani for her part of the report on the choice of priorities, and Mr Fernandes on his part of the report on this self-restraint action on administration.

In order to cover needs, we need to use the flexibility instrument that was agreed between Parliament and the Council. This timely agreement could not have happened without the constructive role of the Polish Presidency, and personally of Minister Dominik, so my thanks to him, because this has also given a positive signal to the beneficiaries of the European budget.

As has already been expressed on so many occasions, the level of payments might not be enough. I have to say this once more. I have to repeat that, in contrast to national annual budgets, the European budget is about investment. I know what the overall share of investment is in the budget for 2012 of the country I know best, which has been reduced to below 5% I think. More than 50 or 60% of the European budget should be classified as clearly being investment expenditure, covering the deficit of investment in the European Union with a multiplier effect on jobs and growth. If we have less for 2012 in real terms than for 2011, there will be some problems for the future as we are today also running short of payments, as is reflected in amending budget No 6. We have to reflect on the procedure of annual budgeting at the end of a financial perspective in terms of an increase in payments. That is normal and is no surprise.

In the previous discussion, your rapporteur in Parliament said to President Draghi: ‘in the Central Bank we trust’. I personally trust in the joint declaration and in its credibility if there is a need for additional payments for 2012. I trust also that we have delivered all the necessary information to release the reserves. Once more, congratulations and thanks to everyone involved, including Alain Lamassoure, for reaching a timely agreement for 2012.

  Giovanni La Via, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, may I take the liberty, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), of thanking the rapporteurs, Ms Balzani and Mr Fernandes, as well as Commissioner Lewandowski, the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Dominik, and all my fellow Members, for the excellent work done and for the spirit of cooperation shown. I believe that the agreement reached during the night of Friday 18 November, after almost 16 hours of negotiations, has produced a good result, especially given the serious economic crisis and the difficulties faced by the national budgets.

As far as commitment appropriations are concerned, I am satisfied with the decision to use the flexibility instrument to the tune of EUR 200 million for headings 1 and 4, as Parliament had requested, in order to boost industrial competitiveness, finance priority policies, which are the essence of the Europe 2020 strategy, and tackle the difficult challenges in terms of neighbourhood policy.

It is clear that Parliament’s priorities have been fulfilled for the other policies from the point of view of commitment appropriations. However, it is also true that, as many MEPs have emphasised in the speeches before this one, and as the rapporteurs themselves have stressed, the agreement cannot be said to be as satisfactory where payment appropriations are concerned, not least because the gap between commitments and payments has widened, which will increase the amount of liabilities to be paid, and because of the difficulties that the Commission may encounter in financing certain programmes that are due to expire.

I believe, however, that today’s vote in Parliament, like the one yesterday in the Council, will serve to ratify a strict and responsible budget that takes full account of the crisis but that, at the same time, seeks to boost investment and the economy in order to achieve the aim of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth in the European Union.

  Göran Färm, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SV) Mr President, my thanks to the Commission, the Polish Presidency and, in particular, to our own rapporteurs, Ms Balzani and Mr Fernandes.

Following lengthy negotiations, we reached a compromise, and our group will support the compromise, as we have managed to get a large number of Parliament’s priorities included: research and development, lifelong learning and neighbourhood policy, in particular, with regard to Palestine. I support the compromise, but the negotiations also give cause for a great deal of concern for the future and have resulted in a lot of criticism within the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.

We find it worrying that most of the negotiations were devoted to resolving conflicts within the Council, where a minority coalition of wealthier net contributors, including Sweden, are playing an increasingly negative role. They seem to be prepared to block an offensive policy for the future.

I am convinced that the EU’s budget needs to be strengthened in certain crucial areas if we are to be able to make a positive contribution to recovery, growth and employment, particularly in those Member States where the need is greatest. We must also improve our implementation of what has been promised in the budget. We therefore need to focus on implementation, payments and at least paying our accounts on time.

With the extremely negative attitude of certain Member States towards the EU’s role, we run the risk in future negotiations on the long-term budget of ending up in the worst situation imaginable where certain Member States wish to safeguard agricultural policy and refuse to amend it while others refuse to increase the budget. The risk is that we will not get new resources for what is really needed: research and development, infrastructure and energy and climate initiatives.

In view of the fact that the Commission, a broad majority of Parliament and the majority of the Member States agree on these needs, I hope that the Polish Presidency and the forthcoming Danish Presidency will actually be able to persuade the blocking minority to consider their responsibility and adopt a more constructive position.

  Carl Haglund, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating and thanking our two rapporteurs on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and also by thanking the Council and the Commission for their excellent cooperation.

Our group will also support the compromise that we are to vote on today. It feels positive to be able to say this in view of the fact that, when we previously voted on our negotiating mandate in the autumn, we abstained because, at that time, we believed that we were trying to increase the budget by too much. In the current economic climate, a 5% increase in the budget quite simply would not be justified. Now the budget is increasing by just under 2%, which is a reasonable figure in the economic situation in which we find ourselves right now.

Another positive aspect is that we actually succeeded in shifting the expenditure to measures oriented towards the future, namely those already mentioned by Mr Färm, such as research and development, lifelong learning and so on. At the same time, in our external relations, we can also focus on what has happened in North Africa in what has been referred to as the Arab Spring. This requires Europe’s attention, not only in the form of policies, but also in the form of funding. All of this is positive, and it means that we can, in fact, happily vote in favour of this budget today.

What causes us a certain amount of concern for the future, however, is the fact that, as has already been said, within the Council, there are those who believe that we do not need to fulfil the agreements that we have entered into. However, we have to pay for what we have already agreed. This is something that cannot be repeated. Last year, we almost failed to reach an agreement on the budget at all. We reached an agreement this year, and that was probably necessary in the current economic climate.

Given the mood in the Council, there may well be a great deal of resistance in this context in future, and therefore there is probably reason for certain Member States in the Council to consider just what it is they have agreed on in order to avoid future budget crises in the EU – something that we really do not need with all of these other economic problems.

  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Parliament seems reluctantly to have accepted a 2012 budget with an increase below 2%, effectively less than 2011 in real terms, but what an opportunity has been missed for Parliament to show that it is in the real world and getting to grips with economic reality. Do we honestly think that funds have been well spent in the past by the European Union or that they will be well spent in the future? Across Europe, governments are having to cut their budgets to overcome massive deficits while desperately trying to induce economic growth.

Meanwhile, the European Union’s appetite just seems to grow. This budget should have seen major substantive cuts, with funds returned to the treasuries of our countries. All the EU’s efforts should be focused on economic growth, on competition, and indeed on areas such as research and development. Instead, over the years, it has accrued more and more areas of competence where frankly it has no business. There are whole swathes of activity that the European Union could cut. We could have set an example with Parliament’s own budget, admittedly only a small part of the overall budget but nevertheless significant, costing some EUR 1.6 billion a year. New Direction, the think-tank, has identified cuts that could easily have been made – a quarter of the budget could be cut, some EUR 400 million could be saved by this Parliament without affecting the core roles of this House.

The driving force in Parliament’s costs has been the massive inflation of Parliament’s bureaucracy, out of all proportion to the number of MEPs. Parliament owns or rents some 62 buildings. We see no way at the moment in which they seem to be cutting back. It is time for the European Union to end excess.

  Helga Trüpel, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Dominik, Mr Lewandowski, Mr Lamassoure, ladies and gentlemen, the budget for 2012 is an austerity budget with increases below the rate of inflation. The political question that we need to ask ourselves and to find an answer to is whether this represents a correct, forward-looking, pro-European decision.

From a green perspective, the EU budget and the national budgets should be setting new priorities. We must remove the non-sustainable policies, in particular, at a European level in the areas of agricultural and Structural Funds. We need to put in their place sustainable policies that will promote competition.

A dramatic figure has been quoted for 2010 which is that global CO2 emissions have increased by 6%. That is not a policy which we can continue if we want to save our planet. From our perspective, the European budget is not doing enough in this respect.

We are living in times of austerity and I would like to emphasise that I know what I am talking about, because I come from Bremen, the smallest German state, and we have been forced to make savings for years. I do not live on the moon and I am not an alien who has landed in Brussels. I understand the suffering in the Member States, but their budgets have all risen in recent years, while the European budget has seen much smaller increases. However, we have to put this in proportion. Therefore, I believe that there is justification for saying that it is right that the small European budget, which amounts to only 1% of the GDP of the Member States, must be increased in specific policy areas, because this is all about spending for the future and about new competitiveness which is so badly needed in many European Member States. The European budget must implement a clear policy in this respect.

What are the positive aspects of this budget from a green perspective? There is funding of EUR 25 million for the new financial supervisory bodies which are urgently needed to enable us to regulate the financial markets more effectively. There are important pilot projects for innovation and also for the sustainable financing of online cultural markets. In our own administrative budget for Parliament, there is also the intention to make structural savings, including a reduction of EUR 20 million in spending on translation and interpreting and cuts in travelling costs. These are clear signs that the Members of this House are prepared to impose their own restrictions on the budget. I believe that this also sends an important signal to the public, to the citizens of Europe.

However, I would like to ask you, ladies and gentlemen and, in particular, the representative of the Council, whether this is a budget that really takes European added value and our common European interests seriously. I cannot see that this is the case. In the light of our major challenge – the conference in Durban is taking place at the moment – as Mr Lewandowski has once again said, the European budget should look quite different. It is, above all, an investment budget. Despite the need for austerity, we must use this budget to create new targeted incentives for new sustainable products, technologies and jobs to enable us to be more successful in the internal market and also on the global market. Only when Europe takes the lead with products of this kind will we have a chance of being competitive with emerging economies such as China and India. We need to do more. I think that a sense of common European determination is lacking in this budget.

Where do I believe that the European Council is being inconsistent? It has constantly called for savings to be made. However, when it comes to the nuclear fusion reactor for which fission products such as tritium are needed, if indeed it ever functions properly, we will be spending EUR 1.3 billion more over the next two years. I would like to ask you whether you think this is consistent. If we really want to make savings, we should focus on future expenditure, in particular, in the area of research policy, where we know that we will be successful over the next few years. In the case of the ITER nuclear fusion reactor, this is completely uncertain. Therefore, it is wrong to take funding from the research framework programme.

In addition, I believe that there is a problem with regard to interinstitutional trust. The Council made the statement that the commitment appropriations that we enter into should really be paid. Now this is no longer quite so clear. Therefore, my group is unable to vote in favour of this budget.

  Miguel Portas, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, the draft 2012 budget will not meet requirements. My opinion differs from that of Commissioner Lewandowski. In terms of research, environmental sustainability, territorial cohesion and social solidarity, this budget does not have the muscle to either compensate for or correct the national austerity policies being followed throughout Europe. This is a budget that does not acknowledge Europe’s slide back into recession, unemployment and widespread insecurity amongst the younger generations. A budget below 1% of gross domestic product, and lower than that for 2011 in real terms, is a minimal budget for a minimal Europe. It is business as usual. So as to water down the evidence of this, the proposal has decided to increase or augment the divergence between commitments and payments; in other words, it is covering up a bad budget with bad budgetary practice.

The alternative would have been to set out more clearly the priorities for negative investment that would free up resources for positive investment. In this budget, however, spending on security and military research is increased, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) is strengthened, funding for big multinationals is increased, and export subsidies that are ruinous for developing countries are retained.

I shall conclude by saying that we have been overcome by schizophrenia: we all talk about more and better Europe, but, in the end, we always choose less Europe.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, the European Parliament and the Commission’s demand for a 5% increase for the 2012 budget was ridiculous, but the Council’s acceptance of a real 2% rise is a slap in the face for taxpayers in Europe. In a doomed pursuit of its Lisbon agenda, the EU has squandered more than one trillion euro of taxpayers’ money. I say the number again: one trillion euro.

Funds are given to the Commission which fails to properly control their use, and yet it always comes back to us for more. The present economic and financial situation in Europe is, without a doubt, a reflection of the abject failure in the use of funds. While this wasteful spree goes on in Brussels, Mr Osborne in the UK has announced further budget cuts.

So I tell the government in the UK today: no, Mr Hague, the EU budget is not under control; no, Mr Cameron, a 2% rise is not a freeze. For goodness sake, stop sending more British taxpayers’ money to the European Union.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, despite much criticism, the 2012 budget is an austerity budget. This is a good sign for our citizens. It shows that the European Parliament is proposing an appropriate budget for these difficult economic times. To remind you, firstly, 94% of the EU budget goes to our citizens. Secondly, 6% funds the work of the EU institutions and, thirdly, the EU budget for 2012 represents an increase of 1.86% over this year and amounts to 0.98% of the GNI of the EU. This more than meets the demands of some Member States.

Despite all the austerity measures, we must not forget that this period of crisis must be followed by a future. However, with 20% youth unemployment, this promises to be extremely difficult for subsequent generations. Therefore, despite all the financial constraints, we must invest more, both in education and in creating sustainable jobs, so that we do not slide further into the crisis. For example, Greece has a great deal of potential. We can invest in solar power plants there which will not only create sustainable jobs, but will also help us to achieve our climate goals if we can transfer the electricity to our part of Europe.

Last but not least, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs and everyone else involved.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Dominik, Mr Lewandowski, it has been a difficult year for both Francesca Balzani and José Manuel Fernandes. It has also been a difficult year for the parliamentary Delegation to the Budget Conciliation Committee, led by Alain Lamassoure.

The Presidency-in-Office of the Council may be happy, and with reason: it saved its own match point in the tennis game that the 2012 budget negotiations turned into, particularly during conciliation night, with the inclusion of amending budget No 6/2011 and the financial implications of the ITER project.

However, I do not see many other reasons to be pleased. The unwritten rules of budget negotiation have been changed for the second time. Before the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, a level was set for commitment appropriations in the budget conciliation, and then we negotiated the necessary payment appropriations. Now, the Council unilaterally sets the level of the payment appropriations and the level of the commitment appropriations is negotiated afterwards. This undermines the European Commission’s estimates and presents Parliament with a fait accompli.

On this occasion, Parliament will accept this because of the economic emergency we are experiencing, which makes agreement essential, even if the agreement is a poor one. However, Mr Dominik, this way of negotiating does not bode well at all for the forthcoming negotiations on the multiannual financial framework.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Mr President, like other colleagues, I also want to thank the two rapporteurs for the tremendous job they have done in putting this budget together. I first of all want to say a few words on the general budget, before going on to the European Parliament’s budget.

In terms of the general budget, I would say that I support the agreement which we reached at conciliation, but also that I have some concerns. I am particularly concerned that in conciliation, we reached an agreement on the budget which does not allow enough funds to go to Structural Funds in the future, and that this will have particular implications for regions and countries across the European Union such as Wales.

In Wales, we benefit greatly from Structural Funds, and if there is not enough money for Structural Funds in 2012, the blame will lie with the Council. The Council should understand and recognise that Structural Funds are an important part of creating jobs and growth in the European Union and if we do not have enough money to fund those Structural Funds, the Council, as I said, should accept the blame.

In terms of the European Parliament’s budget, which is perhaps my main responsibility, I believe Parliament has done its bit in terms of the budget. Parliament has accepted savings of around EUR 74 million – savings in interpretation, translation, etc. Importantly, Members of this Parliament have accepted savings as well, in terms of accepting a freeze in the office allowance and a cut in the travel budget. I believe, in future, we can do even more to make further savings.

For me, the important message of this budget is that this Parliament recognises our priorities. We recognise that our priorities should be in putting money into jobs and growth – things like Structural Funds – while, at the same time, making savings where we possibly can.

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Council Presidency, Mr Lewandowski and, in particular, the two rapporteurs who, together with the Chair of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Lamassoure, have done an excellent job. The tough negotiations that formed part of the conciliation procedure lasted for 17 hours and the European Parliament spent two hours of this in discussions with the Council. Perhaps it would be sensible next time around if the Council did not hold its negotiations during the conciliation procedure, but instead reached a common position first. That would make the job easier for all of us and would extend the Saturday morning slightly.

Nevertheless, we have nominally agreed on a sensible budget. We have accommodated the Council’s requirements. At the Council’s request, the payments were limited to EUR 129 billion and the commitment appropriations were set at EUR 147 billion, which is what Parliament wanted. We should not be under any illusions, however. We are pushing a very dangerous avalanche along. The Council is prepared to finance the commitments that have been entered into by means of supplementary budgets, but I would prefer a commitment to establishing a budget from the beginning with a clear financial basis, so that we do not need constant amending budgets. This simply postpones the problem.

Another problem that has emerged is the fact that the European Union needs more investment in research and development. Everyone, including the Member States, clearly supports this. However, this will not work with a capped budget, unless we are prepared to abandon our dogmatic approach to preserving the status quo and our subsidy mindset. If we do not restructure the budget in favour of research and development and the Europe 2020 strategy, we will not be able to meet these priorities.

At the same time, we have also shown that, at a time when citizens have to tighten their belts, the European Parliament can do the same. I would like to thank Mr Fernandes in particular, who has made an excellent job of initiating this process.

We have achieved a good result and we will be able to vote in favour of this budget. However, we still have to discuss whether this is the right approach in the long term.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, it was not at all easy to reach agreement over the proposed budget this year, and we know that the resulting compromise was adopted in the Council by a slim majority. The total expenditure of just over EUR 129 billion represents a rise of 1.86% and, in my opinion, reflects the consolidated efforts of Member States at national level and the reality of the economic situation facing the continent of Europe today. Put simply, European expenditure during this crisis period has been kept under a tight rein, and below the expected level of inflation.

For me personally, as the coordinator for my group in the Committee on Regional Development, the main priority in deciding on the 2012 budget was, is and continues to be the provision of sufficient resources for cohesion, in other words, for Heading 1b, in order to comply with all of the commitments from previous years. It is therefore vital for us that the budget agreement includes a strong shared determination regarding the payments under item 3.1, securing sufficient funding for the area of cohesion policy, in case of need.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the process of negotiating with the Council has brought us the expected result: more has been cut from something that was already short; very short. The customary ritual will be followed: self-professed pro-Europeans of various stripes, who beat their chests in here when talking about the importance of a robust budget in the service of growth and development, are preparing to vote – without blushing – for this proposal.

This final proposal is below 1% of EU gross domestic product and will represent a decrease in the EU budget in real terms compared with last year. At the same time as they are tightening the noose of instruments like the Stability and Growth Pact and are freezing or even deepening the inequalities between the Member States, they are reducing to almost nothing the redistributive function of the budget, which would play a key role in reducing these inequalities.

All this is greatly exacerbated by intervention in the countries suffering the programmes of the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. More so than the dead letters in the Treaties, the much-vaunted cohesion is increasingly a big lie. Amongst other things, the wave of protests and demonstrations across Europe is against this increasingly big lie.

  Lucas Hartong (NI). – (NL) Mr President, please note that, a fortnight ago, a Chinese investor said that the problems occurring in European countries were entirely the product of a society in its death throes, built on socialist ideals. These encourage laziness rather than hard work. The system of incentives has gone totally off the rails.

The problem with the 2012 EU budget is, indeed, the socialist demand, made by the European Parliament and the Commission, that more and more money be spent when this is simply not possible. Social democracy is working to protect its own interests and that has led to totally irresponsible behaviour. This is reflected in the 2012 budget. This budget, which has been increased again, will only create more jobs for the established euro clique, which has divided the pie up between its members. Our citizens have ended up with nothing. No value has been added: on the contrary. The 2012 budget will not resolve our problems, it will make them worse.

The only solution which Europe really needs is to cut back on pointless things and focus on those things that directly contribute to the recovery of jobs, so that our citizens can earn their living honestly and meet the needs of their families. Yet, the EU will achieve none of that with the 2012 budget. The EU is failing and contributing to its own decline. That is obviously not what the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) wants, and it is, therefore, voting against the 2012 budget, on behalf of Dutch citizens.

  László Surján (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first good news here is that there is an agreement between the Council and Parliament. This will allow the EU to continue to be functional in the upcoming year as well. Furthermore, as a Hungarian, I can say that the lines that are most important to us remained essentially untouched as compared to the Commission’s original proposal. The functioning of agricultural policy has been ensured. In the convergence line, there is an almost nine per cent increase. We could argue whether this is much or little, but at any rate, it is more or less realistic.

There are smaller items for us to be happy about, such as the EUR 9 million increase in funds that can be spent on school milk, a very successful programme. Moreover, we can also be happy about things that do not require any money, or at least no additional money, such as the adoption of the proposal to allocate resources to the conservation, maintenance and development of endangered languages under cultural funds.

Naturally, there are negative aspects as well. There is our debate with the Council about whether the entire European budget can be involved, or needs to be involved, in the process of resolving the crisis. We believe that there is much, much more that could be done in this regard. Still, if I were to weigh the positive and negative aspects against each other I would not even use the metaphor of the glass that is half empty or half full. Our glass is a good 80% full, and the remaining 20% require further efforts over the coming years. I hope that we will be able to achieve this similar to how we were able to achieve the progress made so far. The Group of the European People’s Party will obviously endorse this budget.

  Eider Gardiazábal Rubial (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I think that at times, when we get heavily involved in a discussion and really get down to detail, we can lose sight of the bigger picture to some degree. That is why I would like to remind those of you ladies and gentlemen who are so strongly criticising the outcome of this negotiation that the degree of similarity between the Commission’s proposal and Parliament’s proposals could be more than 95%. I think, if we look at the outcome of the negotiation from the perspective of the commitments, the result is not too bad.

We have strengthened programmes that will enable us to tackle the crisis: entrepreneurial initiative and innovation programmes, the Intelligent Energy – Europe Programme, and programmes such as Erasmus Mundus. We have also committed money that will help our neighbours to the south of the Mediterranean look to a democratic future.

However, one cannot deny that happiness is never absolute. For the past three years, the Council has had just one word on its mind: austerity. You are incapable of seeing beyond it. Parliament has not been convinced by austerity as a principle, and the results of the austerity policies on the European economy, subjected to all kinds of pressure, have not helped to change our minds.

Yet the Council continues to focus only on austerity, and it has taken a further potentially dangerous step. Limiting payment appropriations as far as possible is one thing, but failing to fulfil accepted obligations, which is what is happening now, is something else altogether. This is neither rigour nor austerity. What you are doing is failing to comply with your accepted commitments.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, I would also like to express my great satisfaction with the result that we have achieved, with Parliament having secured the necessary funds for Palestine, the necessary appropriations for research, and also the funding for the fusion energy project ITER for next year, without cuts in the framework programme for research being too large.

Nevertheless, I do have one concern about the result that we have achieved and that concerns Amendment No 6. I think we will find ourselves in an extremely intolerable situation if we have the Council/Member States, on the one hand, promising to come up with extra funds if there should be a need for them, saying that they will ensure that the EU can pay its bills, but then, when the Commission approaches them and needs more money to be able to pay the bills, several countries say that they do not believe that the Commission’s figures are correct – without even providing a description of the correct figures. In my view, that is a completely intolerable situation. Of course we must pay our bills. Mr Lewandowski mentioned that 50-60% of the EU’s budget is an investment budget and that, at the start of the period, the bills that need to be paid are not so large, but that they are large at the end of the period, and right now we are at the end of the seven-year programming period.

The first e-mail that I opened after arriving home from the budget negotiations was from a Danish research company. It asked what is happening at the moment, and continued by saying that it has always been difficult to get money out of the EU, but that the payments were now being delayed more than ever before.

I believe that we are creating problems for ourselves down the line, and I would simply like to ask the Council to make sure that we fulfil our responsibility and to ensure that the EU can pay its bills. It would be unacceptable to do anything else.

  Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the European Union is very much in need of good news at present, and the fact that the EU institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission – have agreed on the European Union’s annual budget for 2012 is indeed good news. I would like to thank everyone present here for their good will and cooperation, and also to extend my particular thanks to the staff: our assistants and advisors and the staff of the Secretariat, who often work through the night, under appalling working conditions.

We must not forget, however, that fundamental, important and very serious problems associated with the European Union budget have not been resolved during our negotiations; moreover, the problems that we will face as a budgetary authority in the near future can be seen very clearly.

I would like to focus in particular on the issue of amending budget No 6 for the year 2011. I am glad that we have managed to agree on the amending budget as well, but it can be seen that the problems which have come to light in this budget will recur; what is more, they will accumulate. Why is this? In my view, it results from people’s expectations of the European Union, its ambitions and plans, the launching of new policies and new measures, such as common diplomacy, its ever-greater involvement in policy related to humanitarian operations, its pursuit of ambitious structural measures, its activities in the field of research – the list could go on forever. All of these ambitions, measures and expectations are not accompanied by any desire on the part of the Member States to finance them. This is a problem which not only will not disappear, but will intensify, because we are committing ourselves to more and more measures, and yet there are no payments to go with them.

I hope that the openness and dialogue we have seen during the conciliation procedure will accompany us as we resolve the problem of payments I have been discussing. I am certainly very open to such a debate. I thank you once again, and I think that the conciliation procedure is the beginning of a long road.

  Estelle Grelier (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the day, this 2012 budget is the Council budget, to which the European Parliament has added a little spiritual something by ensuring the inclusion of a few priorities, but priorities in the form of commitment appropriations, which, Commissioner, will exacerbate the problem of amounts outstanding.

The countercyclical development and growth targets have again been severely obstructed in the EU budget for 2012. Firstly, because competition between programmes, which is the consequence of cutting costs willy-nilly, has been given priority at the expense of structuring measures that would allow us to take an active role in overcoming the crisis.

Secondly, because Member States are refusing to honour payments in a timely manner – despite being legally required to do so – and are therefore deterring project leaders from developing structural initiatives.

Lastly, because the Council has refused to increase, among other things, the funding for financial supervisory authorities and to further the creation of a proper fund to manage farming crises, thereby turning a blind eye to the context in which this budget will have to be implemented.

The Member States are therefore imposing austerity measures on the European Union, just as they have done for their own citizens. The current negotiations on this budget are merely the precursor to the impending negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework.

It will be hard to resolve the apparent lack of confidence between the institutions, resulting, in particular, from the Council’s decision to question the figures provided by the Commission, which I am sure you appreciated, Commissioner, and the failure to comply with decisions that apply to both branches of the budgetary authority.

Yet there are instruments in place for that purpose – I am referring to new own resources, which could put an end to the inevitable deadlock created by the antagonism between net contributors and net beneficiaries. There is now no time to waste.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, we must thank the rapporteurs who, under some extremely difficult conditions with virtually no possible scope for negotiation, have successfully fulfilled, as far as has been possible, the European Parliament’s objectives. We must also be pleased that there is a budget and that we have reached agreement on it. During the current crisis, I believe that having a budgetary crisis as well was not helpful. We only reached this situation thanks to the prudent actions of Parliament, which could have blocked the whole process. Unfortunately, we have not seen the same degree of prudence in the Council.

We have gone through the budgetary procedure twice so far, as stipulated by the Treaty of Lisbon. The exact same scenario has taken place every time: the Council imposed the figures for payments and did not agree to any kind of negotiation, which is not normal at all. I do not believe that this procedure of stating the figures and then making the allocations in the European policies is the normal procedure. In my view, we should do the reverse: we should see what the requirements are first, then calculate the budget.

The Council has issued a statement each time, committing itself to accept budget amendments where the amounts required for payments cannot be achieved. It has not kept its word: just look at what happened with Amendment No 6 to the budget. I do not know whether it will do this next year. We cannot carry on like this, not having confidence in the figures presented by the Commission. There are two procedures of paramount importance coming up next year: the 2013 budget and the multiannual financial framework (MFF). If we are going to go through the exact same procedure, I do not believe that this will be beneficial to the European Union.

  Damien Abad (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, let me start by emphasising that, for the first time, this agreement has been adopted entirely within the deadlines set out in the Treaty of Lisbon for the new budgetary procedure.

Nevertheless, for the second year running, the European Parliament has accepted the Council’s reading on increasing payments by less than 2% this year, which means less than in 2011 in real terms. We have repeatedly said that this decision is at odds with the Commission’s estimates, which identified far higher payment requirements for 2012.

Admittedly, we have obtained the commitment appropriations that we wanted in almost all areas, but nevertheless, we cannot constantly amend the budget and top it up during the financial year as needs are identified. This is a piecemeal approach that will prevent the European Union from setting broad guidelines, particularly in terms of research, as demonstrated by the ITER case.

Let me simply remind you that the EU budget is still a lever and that, despite the current austerity policies in Member States – which we fully understand – we do also need to make some minimum commitments. With 80% of the budget going back to citizens, the European Union budget is not a black hole, but rather a redistribution mechanism that can also be used to invest in the future.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I welcome the agreement reached in the conciliation meeting at which the Council unanimously adopted the final draft of the 2012 budget.

I would also stress the fact that the Council approved Parliament’s proposal to use the sum of EUR 200 million on the basis of the flexibility instrument. This EUR 200 million was made available in response to Parliament’s concern about promoting competitiveness. I should like to mention some examples of priority areas of the 2012 EU budget: the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme, research by small and medium-sized enterprises, Erasmus Mundus, and scientific research in the field of energy.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Dominik, Mr Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating my fellow Members who took part in the negotiations in conciliation with the Council on the complex task they have carried out, one that had to take into account the austerity period and the budgetary difficulties faced by the Member States, which are already under severe pressure.

The outcome of the negotiations can be described as positive as far as the priorities established by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) are concerned. I refer, in particular, to Heading 1a, a key heading for the development and growth of European businesses and the implementation of human capital, where the agreement on the Seventh Framework Programme for the Lifelong Learning Programme and for Erasmus Mundus has been upheld.

However, I cannot accept the fact that, for the second year in a row, the Council has dug its heels in and made horizontal cuts across all budget lines. A 1.86% increase in payment appropriations over the 2011 figure goes against the economic recovery line that the Commission proposed and which this Parliament very much wanted. Focusing on priorities at a time of austerity is surely a winning strategy, but what transpires from the conciliation is a worrying disparity between the commitments made and the appropriations actually granted.

To conclude, Mr President, this result is liable to undermine public confidence in the possibility of our getting through this period of serious economic and social difficulty together, at European level, and within an acceptable time frame.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Lewandowski, I would like to congratulate everyone on drawing up this budget, which is a good model for the Member States to follow. In the case of payments, we should always make a comparison with the average payments made by the Member States. With regard to commitments, we should call on the Member States not to exceed the upper limits which we impose on ourselves. It should also be possible to introduce an automatic mechanism into the negotiations to ensure that the restrictions on getting too heavily into debt which we apply to ourselves at a European level are supported voluntarily by the Member States.

I would specifically like to thank the Commission for allowing Ms Kroes to take over responsibility for the Erasmus for Journalists programme which we introduced last year as a preparatory action. In the context of this programme, journalists can acquire a new understanding in the different capital cities and in many other areas of the European Union of how European policy is implemented by the Member States and by the television companies, the newspapers and the social networks. This is an important opportunity for us to bring journalists closer to the real Europe.

I am also pleased that there is further support for the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs programme. This will generate new jobs and new employment opportunities. The implementation of the programme, which helps entrepreneurs to make contact with suppliers and customers, will establish networks that will benefit all of us.

I would like to thank the Commission for promising to support the Youth Olympic Games in Innsbruck. It is very important for us all that people are brought together across national boundaries, particularly in the field of sport where achievement is the central factor.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I welcome this agreement on next year’s budget. Since there is an economic recession, it is fitting that we accept this agreement because we cannot seek too large an increase for next year, and probably for the next couple of years.

I would like to focus on two things: sea and sport.

Regarding the sea, I welcome very much the new budget line for maritime actions and particularly the proposals made by Commissioner Damanaki just a few days ago regarding the Atlantic. I think the potential for developing new jobs and growth by exploiting the resources of the sea is immense, especially in terms of renewable energy.

In the Atlantic in particular, we probably have the best resources in terms of offshore wind, tidal and wave power and we need to exploit them. Undersea mining could also solve many of our difficulties regarding raw materials and, of course, offshore aquaculture is a tremendous opportunity to offset the destocking of the fish resources in the sea and guarantee healthy fish from our own waters, rather than importing them from dubious sources.

Regarding sport – and my colleague Mr Rübig mentioned many points which I agree with – one thing I would like to see in particular is an Erasmus for sport because I think there is huge potential there. We do not give enough value to the potential of sport in solving economic difficulties, and particularly health difficulties. Every day I attend hearings here with people coming looking for more and more money to do research to find cures for various health problems. The cure is very simple: prevention. That can start by having people lead active lives, healthy lives, starting at a young age.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, to begin with, I, too, would like to offer my congratulations, since reaching a compromise on the 2012 budget is undoubtedly a success, although there are still some failings, because the increase amounts to less than the inflation expected by the European Commission.

I would also like to highlight the part played by the Polish Presidency in reaching the compromise between the European Commission’s proposal, the European Parliament’s position and the Member States’ expectations. I would like to emphasise how happy I am that the cuts, although very stringent, did not extend to cohesion policy, which is the most development-friendly of all European policies and which promotes the maintenance of a necessary level of investment in times of crisis.

With such a difficult budget, it is necessary to search for reserves where European funds are spent inefficiently, and to release their full potential for growth and employment.

  Alfreds Rubiks (GUE/NGL) . – (LV) Mr President, I also agree with the many remarks that have been made concerning how our 2012 budget should be improved. For my part, I should say that the increase in commitment appropriations and payment appropriations proposed by the Council is too large. A more balanced overall budget level would be much more acceptable. There are reserves in administrative expenditure and in other regulations. Secondly, in my view, the Council’s proposal to increase budgeted expenditure under various headings at the expense of the reserves relating to those headings does not merit support. It is essential to determine an adequate level of reserves in the European Union budget; this especially concerns the headings relating to external relations and administrative expenses.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the compromise reached in conciliation is fairly satisfactory: there has been an increase in the funds to support small and medium-sized enterprises and a legitimate increase, also, in the package for FRONTEX, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders.

At a time of obvious difficulty, one could not have asked for more. Indeed, I would have even preferred it if more cuts had been made to certain budget items that I do not consider essential: I am referring, for example, to the increase in the funds for cooperation with Asia and Latin America.

However, I think that the additional increase in the appropriations to support the Turkish Cypriot community is an outrage: I do not believe that the European Union should legitimise a population that is illegally occupying territory that does not belong to it. In any case, the increase has not placed a particularly heavy burden on the Member States, which have already been severely tested by the crisis, and this was undoubtedly the most important thing to ensure.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I just wanted to say that my private headphones have been stolen from my seat. It is not acceptable for headphones to be stolen in this House.

  President. – Let us see if we can resolve this, Mr Rübig. We shall notify the Security Service. Yes, these sorts of things are really very annoying.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, we are discussing the very modest budget for 2012, below 1% of EU GNI, despite growing responsibilities under the Lisbon Treaty and despite growing challenges which deserve a common answer. Although this budget is nominally growing, it is not growing in real terms – in real terms, it is decreasing. And we are not asking on behalf of the Commission or on behalf of Parliament; here we are starting savings. 94% of what we are asking for is for the operational expenditure of a different nature from that which is in the national budgets.

Therefore, I have to respond to some speakers who notoriously accuse us of growing while others are making cuts. This is simply not true; this is true of only about four countries, which are easy to guess – Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal, which are decreasing. The other national budgets of the European Union are growing, including the UK and the Dutch budgets. Despite all the savings, we have some obligations to make payments from the European budget. This is all the same, with the big difference that the European budget is always in equilibrium and cannot be blamed for the mismanagement of fiscal policy at the national level. This is mainly about investment, as clearly explained, for example, by Anne Jensen or Mr Vaughan from Wales, in the name of the stakeholders of the budget.

I am sorry to repeat this on so many occasions but some Members of the Parliament have the habit of making a critical point and leaving before they receive the answer.

  Jacek Dominik, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, of course we can hold a long debate on the level of commitment appropriations and payment appropriations, and there will always be some people who are unhappy. This is also the case with national budgets; there are always some people who are unhappy, because funds for their particular priority have not been provided to the level they would have hoped. Yet let us not forget that we face a very difficult economic situation in the European Union, and extremely serious problems in the Member States in terms of finding extra money. As I see it, however, there are two very important messages which came out of this year’s budgetary procedure, and which I think are worth emphasising at this point and keeping in mind.

Firstly, this year’s budgetary procedure confirmed that we can still talk about and resolve very difficult issues in the European Union using only the Community method. This is a very important message. In order to reach an agreement, we followed exactly the procedure provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon. There was no need for any other extra-institutional measures. This is the kind of achievement we should be aiming for at the moment. We have set an example to the whole of the European Union, proving that the Community method still works.

The second very important message is that despite the criticism levelled at amending budget No 6 to this year’s budget, its adoption proves that the commitments undertaken by Parliament and the Council in the course of the budgetary procedure are respected. We can continue the discussion on whether to accept these 200 million or not. All those who participated in the conciliation procedure will remember that the discussion hinged on whether 200 million is, in fact, the amount needed or not, and whether at this time, while the decision is being taken, we can be sure that the budget needs exactly this specific amount and not some other amount, whether greater or smaller. That is what the discussion was about: not whether to provide the money, but how much money should be provided.

In my opinion, these are two very important messages to be taken from this budgetary procedure, and we should remember them. At present, we are succeeding in implementing the EU’s provisions, the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, and this is what we should focus on. Thank you very much.

  Alain Lamassoure, Chair of the Committee on Budgets. – (FR) Mr President, I would like to endorse the analysis made by the President-in-Office of the Council just now: the European Union, the Europe of 27, is a useful Europe, a Europe that works.

From time to time, we hear some people express the wish that some Members of the European Union be allowed to join forces and go further by working more effectively in certain fields.

For now, a useful Europe, the Europe that works, is the Europe of 27. The good news is that in this unprecedented crisis, we have managed to reach an agreement on giving the European Union the budget that it needs for next year.

For the rest, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you that the Council adopted the draft budget unanimously – a move that I welcome. Parliament will vote in a few minutes. There will be three consecutive votes: a vote on amending the interinstitutional agreement, a vote on the 2012 budget, and one on draft amending budget No 6/2011.

These three votes are the subject of a single political agreement, and I call on my fellow Members to express their support with a broad majority, which will probably not match the Council’s unanimity, but may come close.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today, Thursday.

(The session was suspended at 11.55 and resumed at 12.00)

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Kinga Göncz (S&D), in writing. – (HU) It is good news that this year, the three institutions of the European Union came to an agreement regarding the 2012 budget in time. Due to the crisis, there will be only a slight increase in payments, but I consider it important to review this decision over the next year if necessary, and remind the Member States of the promises they made.

It would be unacceptable for the lack of funds to hit hardest those who are in the most dire need. It is the very programmes under the European Social Fund that support the fight against unemployment and social cohesion which are most endangered by the depletion of funds. Governments must therefore be held accountable for adhering strictly to the Member State commitments made in order to make up for the lack of funds. At the same time, Parliament has managed to negotiate an increase in the level of longer-term financial commitments, and EU funds will therefore hopefully contribute to kick-starting the European economy and achieving our strategic goals for the period until 2020.

‘The establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice has been elevated to a matter of Community competence under the Treaty of Lisbon, and requires more funding’, explained Kinga Göncz, Socialist shadow rapporteur for the 2012 budget on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

An appropriate response to the challenges of security and migration can only be given at European level. Parliament was able to negotiate even more support than proposed by the European Commission as regards commitments for purposes serving the security of citizens and a more open Europe.

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President