Brussels, 14/03/2012 (Agence Europe) - MEPs issued a warning to member states in the budget guidelines approved on Wednesday 14 March (512 votes to 106, with 73 abstentions) on payment appropriations for 2013 that no “artificial” cap must be imposed. The European Parliament (EP) is keen to ensure that the Commission is not put in a position where it can no longer honour its contractual obligations, as was the case in December of last year.
The EP is extremely worried about the payments situation in 2012 and calls on the Commission to put forward proposals so that a solution can be found as early as possible this year, in order to avoid postponing the problem once again, to 2013. It reiterates its call for the Council to refrain from making artificial cuts in payments during the budgetary procedure, and states that this seems to be leading to an unsustainable level of payments. In the event of such proposals being made, Parliament calls on the Council clearly and publicly to identify and justify which of the EU's programmes or projects it believes could be delayed or dropped altogether.
The EP calls for renewed budgetary effort to promote a long-term, sustainable industry policy, and says that improving EIB support for small business (SMEs) and infrastructure should be seen as a priority.
On Tuesday, the European Parliament (EP) debated the report by Giovanni La Via (EPP, Italy) on the Commission's general guidelines for the 2013 budget (see EUROPE 10564). For the moment, it is not about close detail on the figures but about setting a number of priorities, which, for La Via are clear: most has to be done for young people and for small business as that is where the European economy's real potential for growth lies. Along with these guidelines comes a message: the European project is of inestimable value and synergies have to be created with national budgets. Appropriations have proved to be a problem in the previous financial year, the rapporteur states, and he warns: if the Council seeks artificially to lower payment appropriations, the EP will not acquiesce.
For the European Commission, Budget and Financial Programming Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski was largely at one with the EP assessment. He called for full implementation of commitment and payment appropriations, and for assurances of aid for member states in difficulty. In 2013, he said, great sensitivity will have to be shown with regard to “negative priorities” and funding will have to be found for projects such as ITER and the accession of Croatia. On the other hand, savings must and can be found and, with that in mind, the Commission has already made cuts in its own administrative budget.
Speaking for the EPP, Alain Lamassoure (France), chairman of the budgets committee, said: “After two years of budgetary austerity, the situation of the European budget is becoming untenable”. Some states have been “ruined”, others are making sacrifices to help them, the level of funding for Community programmes is too low, and the EU is practically starving growth providers of funding. According to Lamassoure, stock has to be taken of needs: “The figures on which we base discussions have to be the same” if there is to be any hope of achieving “the best outcome for the Council and Parliament”.
How to reconcile austerity and growth: whenever there is talk of money, the debate is always the same. Spanish MEP Eider Gardiazabal, for the S&D, regretted that it was the consequences of the crisis that were being addressed and not the causes, with “too small” a budget at a time when more jobs have to be created and the rise in poverty tackled - and, of course, research and development spending must not be ignored.
The budget must be “balanced, reasonable and responsible”, said Alexander Alvero (Germany) on behalf of the ALDE Group. How can two consecutive austerity budgets be justified when there has to be investment in the future? It is the quality of the investment that counts, Alvaro stated: taxpayers' money must be used wisely.
For his compatriot Helga Trüpel (Greens/EFA), the key word is sustainability, which will bring jobs, for example in agriculture, and the development of risk-free technologies. It is not enough to consolidate, Europe has to turn to the future, by, inter alia, giving the EUROPE 2020 strategy every chance of success.
Richard Ashworth (ECR, UK) agreed on the need to balance austerity and sound investment while, nevertheless, arguing for a cut in the European budget: are member states not cutting their own budgets? That was the view expressed, too, by his Euro-sceptic fellow-countrywoman, Marta Andreasen, who railed against the failure of the Lisbon Strategy. She would like to see her government reduce its contribution to the European budget by 10%, but thinks such a move unlikely. On the other side of the House, Jürgen Klüte (GUE/NGL, Germany) took a different stance. He would like the EU to do more to tackle poverty, in Europe and throughout the world. He welcomed the intention to increase coordination of national budgets. (LC/LG/transl.rt)