Strasbourg, 26/09/2002 (Agence Europe) - The plenary debate on the results of the first reading of Budget 2003 (see also yesterday's EUROPE, p.15) took place on Tuesday according to a new formula whereby, after general discussion, the MEPs expressed their views on various chapters of the budget, and Commissioners responsible for those chapters took the floor immediately after. There were several abiding features in remarks made by MEPs. These were their concern for correct implementation of the budget, the desire to be involved from the reflection stage in decisions with major budgetary implications, and the need to have resource policies that live up to the Union's ambitions.
Amounts awaiting clearance are a problem, admitted Michel Barnier, in response to questions put to him on structural funds. One difficulty arises from the fact that the Commission must work on the basis of estimates made by Member States and that the latter do not always give priority to the new programmes but rather to the old projects that they consider should be brought to a close. There has not been "negligence" on the part of the Commission as Esko Seppänen (Finnish member of the GUE/NGL Group claims), protested the Commissioner. He affirmed that the simplification of the way the Commission's regional and "proactive" policy works in seeking greater transparency should make it possible to remedy any persisting problems.
Antonio Vitorino replied on justice and home affairs. Although one notes a certain amount of stability in the total amount of spending foreseen, it was necessary, for 2003, to "refocus" certain activities placing greater emphasis on asylum and immigration policy and the resources needed for Eurojust. The Commission floated proposals concerning Europol, and it is up to the Council to bring the situation out of deadlock by reaching a decision. Austrian Green member Raina Echerer, who questioned him on information policy, exclaimed that, as an actress, she knows that, if people do not come to the theatre, then the theatre must go to the people. This policy is a priority for us, confirmed the Commissioner, but it must have sufficient funding. He is therefore in favour of the amendment proposing to step up the amount earmarked for information action with regards Member States by EUR 500,000.
External policy has, over the past few years, been a great challenge for the Union, which has shown proof of flexibility, and the Commission has been able to count on the Parliament's support in this field, especially as far as Afghanistan is concerned, said Michaele Schreyer. Still regarding external policy, Poul Nielson recognised that actions should be normalised, with funding appearing in the general budget (some MEPs had asked for Afghanistan to have its own budgetary line, as well as Palestine). Mr Nielson also had to face up to a barrage of questions on the World Health Fund. British Labour member Terence Wynn said they must know how much the Union must pay to have a seat in the Fund's council, but the Commissioner replied: "my reluctance to answer comes from the fact that we have no figures" and they want to see what the other donors are going to do. Mrs Schreyer, however, said that the EU's financial commitments (EUR 35 million) and those of the Member States account for 2/3 of donor pledges and the EU should therefore not have any problem about gaining a seat.
Answering questions on the human rights clause in agreements with third countries, Mr Nielson specified that this was a fundamental element of the agreements with these countries. The notion of human rights, added Mrs Schreyer in response to a question from Miet Smet, Belgian Christian Democrat, must, according to the Cotonou Agreement, include equal opportunities between men and women. As far as the TACIS programmes are concerned, Mr Nielson affirmed that the gap between the commitments and the mobilisation of funding is growing narrower all the time.