Retour au portail Europarl

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (sélectionné)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Ce document n'est pas disponible dans votre langue. Il vous est proposé dans une autre langue parmi celles disponibles dans la barre des langues.

Parliamentary questions
PDF 41kWORD 24k
15 March 2012
Question for written answer E-002901/2012
to the Commission
Rule 117
Edward Scicluna (S&D)

 Subject: Malta budget cuts
 Answer in writing 

On 6 January 2012, the Government of Malta announced budget cuts equivalent to 0.59 % of gross domestic product (GDP), that is, of about EUR 40 million. These cuts were allocated by the government as follows: salaries (0.1 % of GDP), overtime (0.04 % of GDP), operational and maintenance expenditure (0.07 % of GDP), programmes and initiatives (0.21 % of GDP) and government entities (0.17 % of GDP).

In practical terms this resulted in cuts of EUR 805 000 in contributions to government entities including Appogg, Sapport and Sedqa, which provide essential support services to the most vulnerable people in society (including assistance to persons with drug and alcohol dependencies, child protection services, support for victims of domestic violence and many other community-based services).

In view of the Commission’s early warning letter sent to the Maltese Government in November 2011 seeking convincing evidence that it would meet its deficit targets and the subsequent statement made on 11 January of this year that Malta had taken effective action in this regard:

1. Why did the Malta 2012 Budget not convince the Commission that the targets set by the Government would be attained?
2. Did the Commission communicate with the Government regarding its evaluation and conclusion?
3. Did the Commission suggest to the Government that cuts were needed?
4. Did the Commission suggest specifically the amounts of the cuts that should be made?
5. Did the Commission suggest the details of how and where these cuts should be made?
6. Did the Commission insist that capital expenditure should be excluded from these cuts?

 OJ C 117 E, 24/04/2013
Avis juridique - Politique de confidentialité