Brussels, 03/02/2006 (Agence Europe) - The committee on budgets of the European Parliament, meeting on 2 February, described the proposal by the European Commission on the update of the inter-institutional meeting, a text which is essential for the definitive adoption of the financial framework 2007-2013, as highly unsatisfactory (EUROPE 9120). It is calling for greater budgetary flexibility and a specific role for the EP in the revision of the Community budget earmarked for 2008-2009. It calls upon the Commission to review its copy ahead of the forthcoming Trialogue, planned for 21 February, otherwise the Parliament will produce a new version of the document itself, which is more in line with its demands, warned rapporteur Reimer Böge (EUROPE 8964 on the opinion of the EP of June 2005 on the financial perspectives). In a working document, Mr Böge (CDU) analyses and criticises the main elements of the Commissions document:
Budgetary flexibility: the Commission is proposing to raise the maximum annual sum total of the flexibility instrument from 200 to 700 million EUR (or 4.9 billion EUR over the period 2007 to 2013) and to extend its scope of application to cover not only unexpected financial requirements, but also the new multi-annual needs. The EP feels that this sum is insufficient (it recommends a global flexibility of 0.03% of the cumulative gross national income of the EU over the period of seven years), and criticises the Commission for having ignored its request to create a number of flexibility reserves not taken account of in the financial framework: 7 billion (maximum for seven years) for growth and competitiveness, 3 billion for cohesion, 6.2 billion for the Solidarity Fund, 1.5 billion for emergency aid and 3 billion for loan guarantees (in favour of third countries). Furthermore, the EP would like to see a flexibility reserve of 3.5 billion EUR for non-programmed actions and unexpected events.
Solidarity Fund: the Commission proposes that this Fund remain outside the financial framework and keep its current characteristics as relates to the maximum annual amount (one billion). The EP would like to see much higher sums (6.2 billion), outside the financial framework.
European globalisation adjustment fund: the EP has no specific requests to make with regard to this fund, the creation of which was decided upon by the European Council (last December), but notes that, once again, the earmarked envelope (a maximum of 500 million per annum) remains outside the financial framework.
Re-examination of the financial framework: the Commission remains relatively faithful to the conclusions of the European Council. The text provides that in 2008-2009, it will present the results of the broad re-examination, covering all aspects of the EU's expenditure and resources, in the form of a White Paper, in order to "ensure that the budget will be able to meet future challenges". In his working document, Mr Böge indicates that the Commission makes no mention of the role of the EP in the decision to be made on any budgetary changes which may be brought in. Jan Mulder (ADLE, Netherlands) has issued a press release in which he notes that this revision clause particularly provides for the reform of the common agricultural policy and of the system of own resources, which means that it is "unthinkable that the EP may not be fully involved in the these two building sites which will determine the future of these common policies and the way they are funded".
Mr Böge states that under these circumstances, the Commission's proposal cannot be used as a basis for fair negotiations with the Council, particularly as the EP has other requests which have not been taken into account (modification of the financial regulation, national certification of expenditure management, and others).
At the meeting of the committee on budgets, President Janusz Lewandowski (EPP-ED, Poland) said that the document of the European Commission had "very little use in the current context". Mr Böge and that he was unable to understand why the "priorities of the EP had been so neglected by the Commission". For Ralf Walter (PES, Germany), "this proposal does not deserve our support". How come our demands are less important than those of the Council, he asked. Helga Trüpel (Greens/EFA, Germany) spoke out against the lack of coherency in the Commission's position.
Cautious initial reaction from the Member States
Coreper will examine the Commission's text in greater detail on 8 February. Giving their gut reactions on 1 February, several of the Member States which are proponents of budgetary rigour pointed out that the Council had no leeway to negotiate (either on the total from 2007 to 2013, or on the credits within any of the given headings). Some of them voiced concern about the planned increase of credit under the flexibility instrument which, they said, has not yet been justified. Coreper recalled the decisions of the Summit on the revision of the budget, which were that the Commission's report would be sent to the European Council. The Commission indicated that it would present a document to Coreper on 16 February, on how the credit is to be divided between the various programmes of the financial framework and that it would adopt, probably on 22 February, a proposal on changes to the decision on own resources (to take account of the decisions of the Summit, notably on the new calculation of the British rebate and the reduction of the contributions made by certain countries).