Strasbourg, 12/12/2000 (Agence Europe) - The second reading of the draft Budget 2001 by the European Parliament opened in a calmer atmosphere than it did last year, thus concluding a less controversial budgetary procedure in which the Parliament and Commission did not really have to fight to obtain revision of the financial perspectives that the Fifteen did not want. The agreement reached between the EP and Council during the last Budget Council on 23 and 24 November fixed the main lines of the budget for next year (839 million for the Balkans, including 200 million from the flexibility instrument; an increase in payment appropriations limited to 3.5% compared to the Budget 2000 …). The other debate, on the financing of measures intended to palliate the mad cow crisis has begun, but the vote on additional funding will be held later through an "additional correcting budget". The changes brought by the Parliament during its vote on Thursday to the draft budget for 2001 will therefore be of a marginal kind.
The discussions on Tuesday were partly used by some to justify the positions taken on the financing of external policy actions and revision of financial perspectives. All also wanted to pat themselves on the back for having reached an agreement at the Budgets Council. "Unlike the Nice Summit, there were results after one night, results that meet with the satisfaction of all three institutions", stressed Michaele Schreyer, Budgets Commissioner.
The budget before us, although not "brilliant", is "sparing, sensible and logical", said Rapporteur Jutta Haug, who stressed that it is "not giving up the fight against unemployment" and mainly comprises -for actions in favour of SMEs that should allow jobs to be created- a budget of 450 million, four times that proposed by the European Commission. One of the main problems of this budget concerns EU external actions. In this connection, the German Social Democrat noted how intransigent the Council is in continuing to refuse revision of financial perspectives, while noting that it has finally agreed to mobilise the flexibility instrument for the sum of EUR 200 million, which means that, for the Balkans, EUR 839 million are available, including 240 million for Serbia. Ms Haug described the Council as a "bad master" whereas the Parliament behaves like the "good servant" in the interest of the citizens.
CSU member Markus Ferber, Rapporteur on the budget of the other institutions, mainly posed the problem of how effective the work of the Court of Justice is (mainly for translations). He welcomed the intention of the Court and of the other institutions to review their policy for promoting officials to make it more transparent and to ensure that the criteria is "performance and not seniority". Furthermore, Mr Ferber hoped that a Common Recruitment Office would finally be set in place for all institutions. The rapporteur on the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument, Spanish Socialist Joan Colom I Naval affirmed that the "unmentionable" words are "revision of financial perspectives". What is the difference compared with the repeated use of flexibility instrument?, asked Mr Colom I Naval. Also, noting that the EU's commitment towards the Balkans is multi-annual, and that this time MEDA has been sacrificed in order to keep the commitment, he asked who would be the next victim. Under these conditions, he said, he can only recommend mobilisation of the flexibility instrument, this "revision of financial perspectives that must not be pronounced".
The tone used by the Council President, Florence Parly was positive. The budget, she hoped, would be approved this week, and would allow the financing of "all Union priorities" on behalf of the citizens. The French secretary of State mainly described the "main breakthroughs" in the second reading of the budget by the Council, on 24 November, and above all cited: a) the agreement on aid to the Balkans aimed to take into account the democratic changes that have come about in Belgrade; b) the agreement on funds amounting to EUR 60 million for financing BSE screening tests (this figure should be considered as a "provisional amount" as this crisis will "call for other measures", she said). Ms Parly noted that the Parliament has in this budget a "large margin of manoeuvre" of around one billion euros, and also recalled the need to "respect the criteria for classifying expenditure into compulsory and non compulsory spending". She therefore told the Parliament that the Council could not, as it had hoped to do through amendments, consider as compulsory expenditure that on the early retirement system and that linked to fishing agreements.
During the debate, the PES Group, speaking through Ralf Walter, and the Greens with Heide Rühle gave their assurance that, if they agreed this year to use the flexibility instrument and to renounce revision of financial perspectives given the intransigence of the Council, they would take a far tougher attitude next year. Heide Rühle felt the financial perspectives "appear increasingly like a straitjacket that do not allow any long term planning". Answering Joan Colom I Naval, who rightly stressed that using the flexibility instrument but refusing to revise financial perspectives amounts to hypocrisy, James Elles, on behalf of the EPP, who did not wish to demand revision, replied that "flexibility is for a small amount whereas revision is for the largest amounts". French Secretary of State Florence Parly maintained for her part that the use of the flexibility instrument two years running, for Kosovo in the Budget 2000 and then for Serbia in the Budget 2001, would correspond to "exceptional effort for exceptional needs" and that it would be "wrong" to consider it as a revision of financial perspectives.