Brussels, 07/12/2000 (Agence Europe) - The EP's Committee on Budgets urges the Assembly to approve, in plenary session, the agreement concluded with the Council on 24 November last on the budget for 2001. The Haug (PES)/Ferber (EPP) report that the Committee on Budgets adopted on Tuesday confirms this agreement: an envelope of 839 million euro, 240 million of which for Serbia; the use of the flexibility instrument (200 million) to finance a major part of the aid to Serbia; increase in payment appropriations in relation to the 2000 budget limited to 3.5%; 60 million euro for BSE screening tests...(see EUROPE of 25 November, p.8). Other than the funding of the BSE screening tests, the report makes no specific demands regarding the mad cow crisis; but, meanwhile, the European Commission has decided that early next year it would be proposing an additional budget of 970 million euro to tackle this crisis (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.9).
The Committee on Budgets also proposes 741 million euro for the Meda programme (cooperation with Mediterranean countries) instead of the 701 million voted by the Council.
The Committee on Budgets thus proposes that plenary definitively adopt, for 2001, a budget amounting to 96.24 billion euro in commitment appropriations and 92.57 billion in payment appropriations.
The Committee on Budgets has also adopted a lightened version, through the votes of the EPP Group, of the report by Joan Colom I Naval (PES) on the review of the financial perspectives. In only five articles, the report "approves the decision of the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument" for Serbia, and stresses that the use of this instrument for 2000 then for 2001 "weakens the initial scope", as this prevents its use in the course of the year were there to be important unforeseen requirements. The report also stipulates that requirements in the Balkans will remain in the following years. The Committee on Budget, however, did no take on board the proposal of the rapporteur of stressing that the use of this instrument "amounts in fact to a disguised review of the financial perspectives". Nor did the Committee on Budgets take on board the request he was proposing to put to the Commission of submitting a new proposal for a review of the financial perspectives before the beginning of the adoption procedure for the 2002 budget.