Strasbourg, 14/05/2002 (Agence Europe) - In the presence of Commissioner Michaele Schreyer, the members of the parliamentary committee on budgets of the European Parliament had an exchange of views in Strasbourg on Monday evening on the preliminary draft budget (PDB) for 2003. Ms. Schreyer having presented the major outlines of the PDB, several MEPs criticised: the use of the "flexibility instrument" to finance some spending (administrative and fisheries), the lack of details on the requirement in staff to prepare enlargement, the low increase in the payment appropriations and the inadequate level of margin available for the EU's external spending.
Per Stenmarck (Swedish, EPP-ED) would have liked the Commission to have been more cautious regarding the use of the flexibility instrument: the EP had "asked for this kind of thing to be avoided (….). We said that the flexibility instrument was only to come in to tackle unexpected events; yet, EU enlargement is not really something unexpected". According to him, "we certainly do have commitments" concerning the Spanish and Portuguese fleets (affected by the failure of the renewal of the fisheries agreement with Morocco), but "we must see if it is to possible to proceed with restructuring with other sectors". For Goran Farm (Swedish, PES), the Commission must "go a little further" in its presentation of the PDB, and "we cannot be satisfied with certain figures that appear to be definitive" in agricultural (and fisheries) and administrative spending. He had doubts as to the account having been taken of possible changes to the common agricultural policy (Cap); "It is clear that the debate over the Cap will not only be on technical adjustments, but also on the mid-term review of Agenda 2000", he pointed out, considering that the Commission should launch this debate as soon as possible (i.e., in July), rather than wait for the end of the year. Mr. Farm strongly urged the Council General Secretariat to provide details on its intentions on preparing the institutions for enlargement, "to know what figures we shall be faced with" and to "be able to use the flexibility instrument". The estimate of spending under the heading of the EU's external actions is also a source of concern for the EP, he acknowledged, while stressing that the margin available of 60 million euro could soon reveal itself to be inadequate given the uncertainties in the Middle East, the needs of Afghanistan and the undertakings made to combat poverty. Mr. Farm criticised the low increase in payment appropriations, which would tend, over the years, to melt "like butter in the sun". For Barbara Duhrkop Duhrkop (Spanish, PES), the flexibility instrument, increasingly frequently used, is beginning to start being a "cage of reptiles", "a resource used in case of problems". According to her, the 7% increase in appropriations provided for to pay the pensions of civil servants is not very realistic (and inadequate). Salvador Carriga Polledo (Partido Popular) said he was "surprised at the low 2.7% increase in payment appropriations (…) which does not square well with the commitments made". "We remember all the Commission's initial statements that did not go along these lines at all. It seems that the EU budget is one of the most austere", he observed. Ralf Walter (SPD) said that the EP wanted more details on spending regarding wages and pensions before being able to agree to the creation of 500 new positions requested by the Commission to prepare for enlargement. It is not a question of noting the creation of these jobs, but of thinking about the long-term consequences of these new needs, which "will represent a large budgetary increase that we shall have to handle by the end of the year". Kyosti Tapio Virrankoski (Swedish, ELDR) asked the Commission how, in the PDB, it had taken account of unspent sums (surpluses) and the remainder to liquidate (RTL). He also stressed that the flexibility instrument, that initially responded to an EP request, was now "especially used by the Commission and Council without MEPs having their word to say".
Regarding administrative expenditure, Michaele Schreyer answered that the Commission had taken account of the first estimates by institutions on requirements stemming from preparing for enlargement, but that the Council had not presented its latest proposals. She said that the latest figures supplied by the Council Secretariat General referred to an increase of 11% in administrative spending, and stressed that the Commission had not proposed the creation of new positions for other tasks other than enlargement, but only a redistribution of human resources to new priorities (sustainable development, security). Ms. Schreyer stressed that the difficulties met today under Heading 5 (administration) were due to the fact that the financial perspectives decided on in Berlin did not provide money for preparing the institutions for enlargement. According to Schreyer, six months before the date of the first new accessions, they would have to provide for additional staff (also from the candidate countries) to prepare implementation of decisions on the Structural Funds and agriculture.
She acknowledged that expenditure on pensions had greatly increased and that it would take time before the situation stabilised.. Finally, she said that Member States were counting on average on an increase of 3.4% in their public spending (against a proposed increased on 2.7% in payment appropriations for the Community budget for 2003).