Brussels, 15/12/2009 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 17 December 2009, the European Parliament will vote on the EU's budget for 2010, the last budget drawn up before the Lisbon Treaty came into force. Some rapporteurs pointed out in the debate on Tuesday 15 December that the budget had to be seen in the light of the big changes that the Lisbon Treaty will introduce in the next tax year.
All sides worked together in preparing the budget which has one main target - making the best use of the available cash. This means that rather than being a burden, the budget can be used to help generate economic recovery, improve competitiveness and help reduce the EU's carbon footprint, explained the rapporteur on the general budget, Laszlo Surjan (EPP, Hungary). Surjan was pleased that the EU was providing €300 million, on a temporary basis, to help dairy farmers.
Proper use of funding is crucial, added joint rapporteur Vladimir Manka (S&D, Slovakia). Manka pointed out that the Lisbon Treaty has given the European Parliament extra work by extending its codecision powers and this intensified legislative work will necessarily require greater resources to enable MEPs and officials to do their work.
Jutta Haug (S&D, Germany), rapporteur for the EU's 2009 budget, said it was not easy to stimulate economic recovery but was very critical of the European Commission, saying that she had the impression that the Commission had ignored the EP's desires when shunting cash around in the budget from one heading to another. Is this what is meant by budgetary clarity, she wondered bitterly.
Reimer Böge (EPP, Germany), rapporteur on use of the 'Flexibility Instrument,' welcomed the fact that there is €21 million in the energy budget to decommission a nuclear power plant in Bulgaria. He is also pleased with the extra funding for broadband in the countryside (€75 million). He said the big issues in the talks on the EU's budget for 2007-2013 would be the European Economic Recovery Programme and changing the 2006 inter-institutional agreement on budget discipline and good financial management.
The 2010 budget is certainly not the Council of Ministers' desired outcome but neither does it satisfy the EP, admitted the chair of the Council of Ministers, Hans Lindblad. He explained that it was, however, a balanced political compromise and sent out the right signal as the Lisbon Treaty comes into force.
Speaking on behalf of the European Commission, Algirdas Šemeta said everyone had to give ground and make sacrifices in order for it to be possible to reach agreement and one of the high points was the smooth transition to the post-Lisbon set-up. Likewise, use of the Flexibility Instrument had worked well and everybody should be happy with the outcome, he said.
The EPP's priorities for the 2010 budget are a tightened belt and transparency, explained José Manuel Fernandes of Portugal, expressing relative satisfaction with the compromise but concerned that insufficient funding had been allocated to tackling the impact of climate change and energy policy. He added that the aid for dairy farmers should become a permanent feature. On behave of the S&D, Sweden's Göran Farm said it was crucial that the European Economic Recovery Programme was being funded but he is unhappy that the cash earmarked as part of the PROGRESS microfunding Programme had not been boosted because microfunding helps people out of unemployment and social exclusion. Anne Jensen (ALDE, Denmark) said the main problem with the budget that was acceptable overall was the lack of flexibility and it would have to be revised part-way. For the Greens, Germany's Helga Trüpel said it was an acceptable compromise but a rigid budget that amounted to a straightjacket. She pointed out that no fewer than 50 transfers and 10 amending budgets had been necessary in the previous financial year. The biggest problem facing us is saving planet Earth, explained Trüpel, and the funding provided does little to this end.
Not all commentators were happy with the budget. Hungary's Lajos Bokros (ECR) said it gave the EU too much cash and criticised the way it was automatically increased each year to cover the bureaucracy's operating costs. Portugal's Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL) is unhappy with it because its only solution to the crisis is social justice, but a serious rethink of the EU's financial resources is required. The UK's Marta Andreasen (EFD) did not mince her words, describing the budget as an illustration of stupidity by injecting cash precisely into those areas that the European Court of Auditors said were subject to fraud. Andreasen said it was 'obscene' for the EU institutions to be calling for a pay rise when so many people in the outside world were being made redundant and going without.
The budget deal was possible due to the intelligence of the Council of Ministers, the cooperation of the European Commission and the willingness to compromise of the representatives of the EP's political parties, argued the chair of the EP's Budgets Committee, Alain Lamassoure (EPP, France). He said that the big event was not taking place in the EP but in Copenhagen, where in two days people had decided on what was described as 'EU aid' for poor countries suffering from climate change. He said that two billion, four hundred million euros had been magically found out of thin air. He said that while he welcomed this, he thought that no true democrat could agree to such lack of transparency. He said it was not fair because countries of equal wealth were contributing different amounts.
Although most MEPs said they could work with the draft budget, they did not hide their concerns. Estelle Grelier (S&D, France) said she would be reluctantly voting for the budget because there was no other option. She said the Commission and Council let each Member State decide for itself about its economic recovery programme without any true joined-up thinking. Spanish Socialist Eider Gardiazábal Rubial slammed the Council of Ministers' extremely dogmatic stance, never wanting to provide funding and only agreeing to a European Economic Recovery Programme that was spread out over a two-year period and required some 'creative accounting' at the European Commission to find the cash. Dutch ALDE MEP Gerben Gerbrandy was unhappy with the budget for a different reason. He said it gave farming too much cash and innovation too little, despite the fact that more funding would have to be invested in innovation to prevent European turning into a big museum for tourists. Poland's Danuta Hubner (EPP), chair of the EP's Regional Policy Committee, called for the Cohesion Policy to be boosted to serve as a bridge between the economic crisis and long-term transformation of the European economy. Romanian Socialist Catalin Sorin Ivan expressed concern about use of EU funding, calling for the rules to be changed, where necessary, to make sure the money gets properly used in the Member States. Jean-Pierre Audy (EPP, France) had a number of practical suggestions - boosting the EU's anti-fraud office, particularly outside the EU; holding an inter-institutional conference to ensure the European Court of Auditors gave a positive statement about the EU's accounts; and setting up an investment arm in the budget because the EU does not invest enough. James Nicholson (ECR, Northern Ireland) called for cash to be earmarked for victim support and people suffering from terrorism.
Members of the EPP stressed the importance of transparency in deciding on the budget. György Schöpflin of Hungary and Gay Mitchell of Ireland want each EU institution to have a deputy Secretary General to keep a regular eye on what staff actually do in the workplace, to ensure that the best use is made of EU officials. (L.G. trans fl)