A new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe (continuation of debate) President We now continue with the debate on the report by Salvador Garriga Polledo on a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe. François Alfonsi (FR) Mr President, the report by Mr Garriga Polledo, and I thank him and congratulate him on his work, is an ambitious summary that looks to the future. Indeed, his report calls for greater resources so that the Union can better implement its objectives as set out in the Treaty of Lisbon. It forcefully raises the question of own resources and therefore, indeed, the issue of whether our institution enjoys freedom in its fundamental political act, that of voting on its budget. It proposes extending and expanding common policies, in particular, cohesion policy which has made a major contribution in the past to making the European Union a model of cooperation and understanding between peoples, and may continue to do so in the future. With the future Multiannual Financial Framework, if we listen to the European Parliament, cohesion policy will be able to move into a new phase thanks to the creation of intermediate regions. Thus, we propose a new package for this fund which strengthens equal opportunities between all our European territories, regardless of their past in economic terms, regardless of their handicaps when compared with more developed regions and regardless of how vulnerable they may be to the economic crisis that we are experiencing at present or any crisis that we may have to face in the future. Cohesion among the different territories of the European Union is a key, strategic objective on which the very future of Europe depends. The proposals that have been made are a step in the right direction, and if they are acted upon, lay sound foundations for the future. Mr President, the vote on the report by Mr Garriga will be a simple choice: choosing a Europe that is moving forward, a vote by people who, leaving aside their political affiliations, believe in the future of Europe. Ilda Figueiredo (PT) Mr President, at this time of serious economic crisis in the euro area, resulting from neoliberal policies, and from a lack of solidarity and economic and social cohesion, it is unacceptable that a break with and change in the policies of the European Union and its financial resources is not being advocated. When experiencing an economic and social crisis, one of the most significant challenges we face is finding a new Multiannual Financial Framework in which the Union budget for economic and social cohesion is significantly increased, whilst obligatory national contributions are reduced to, at most, 10% of the project on the table, particularly for the countries with the greatest financial difficulties; a framework in which there is a commitment to investment, to public services, to support for production, to the creation of jobs with rights, and to the eradication of poverty, social inequalities and all types of discrimination, particularly on the basis of gender. There is also a need to promote peace, cooperation and development aid, and to significantly cut spending on the military and overseas representation. For all these reasons, we consider this report a long way from what is needed for a better, fairer future for Europe and its citizens. President Ladies and gentlemen, as I take the chair for this sitting, all of you will understand if I express to you my sorrow and consternation at the death of Jorge Semprún, which took place a few hours ago, at the age of 87. In Jorge Semprún, we celebrate someone who was imprisoned in Buchenwald concentration and extermination camp, someone who fought Nazi forces in France and the Franco dictatorship in my country, Spain. We also celebrate the outstanding, politically-committed writer, who collaborated, in particular, on our European Book Prize programme, and the reassured pro-European politician. I mourn his death as both a colleague and a friend of his and I am going to ask President Buzek to send his family and the Spanish Government a message of heartfelt condolence and support, which I am sure that all of us here share. (Applause) Lorenzo Fontana (IT) Mr President, there is no doubt that we are facing one of the most critical moments in the economic history of the European Union. For this very reason, the committee that we have managed to establish during the course of this year certainly has a fundamental role. We have no preconceived ideas against increasing the budget, although we think we do need to investigate where cuts can be made. It is clear that we need to cut the European budget because, unfortunately, sometimes European funds are not used properly. Indeed, perhaps it is precisely because of the way that these funds are used that many European citizens are no longer so convinced that the European Union is worthwhile. To cite an example, we would call your attention to the various funds channelled towards the enlargement policy - sometimes we do not know where they end up. What is there to say about the incalculable amounts spent on integration and which have achieved so little? There are also some virtuous regions that do not access the funds, which are then granted to other regions that either fail to use them, or use them poorly or for not entirely legitimate ends. We would ask for maximum focus on this whole issue and for steps to be taken so that Europe can recover its credibility, including through rigorous measures. Frank Vanhecke (NL) Mr President, obviously, I will have to confine myself to a couple of essential comments. First of all, despite its bulk, I cannot find anywhere in this report a single serious attempt to make proposals for structural savings, for example, the abolition of what, in my view, are totally superfluous European institutions, such as the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and a good few European agencies of all kinds. Nor, indeed, has any attempt whatsoever been made to ask the question of whether Europe would not be wiser to confine itself to a number of carefully defined core tasks. On the contrary. Secondly, I absolutely shudder at the repeated suggestions that the EU should impose its own taxes or that it should issue European government bonds, which will sooner or later have to be paid back by somebody. The suggestion in this report that measures of this kind would not increase the total tax burden on the citizens is a lie, of course, and a deception of the worst sort. Besides, this would further undermine the last vestige of supervision and control that the Member States are exercising on the European institutions' spending diarrhoea. Those are the basic reasons why I cannot possibly support this report. Marian-Jean Marinescu (RO) Mr President, the current challenges which the European Union is faced with require a firm, sustained EU-level response. The response to these challenges is the 2020 strategy, an instrument created to bring recovery and strength to Europe. The report presented today places the 2020 strategy at the heart of the next MFF being drafted, together with the new situation created by the areas of competence and policies stipulated by the Treaty of Lisbon. At a time when many Member States are faced with difficult fiscal adjustments, the EU budget, 95% of which is used for investment, must provide a very high level of European added value. The report calls for the continuation of two extremely important European policies - the common agricultural and cohesion policies - at least at their current level. The allocation of resources under these policies must be based on new criteria which will ensure the proper use of resources to achieve maximum efficiency and compliance with convergence and cohesion criteria. The transport and energy policies must be enhanced. Allocation of funding to research and development, at both European and national level, must ensure the progress of all European policies. The seven-year period, the new structure proposed and greater flexibility provide additional security in implementing and adapting to changing priorities. For the sake of stability, the EU budget's system of resources needs to be rethought so as to replace current national contributions with European resources. The European Council recently adopted ambitious targets for the EU's development. This same Council must accept that the 5% budget increase being proposed by the report is the minimum condition for achieving these targets. The forthcoming MFF must be implemented with an economic governance system in place which can ensure the financial stability required to implement European policies. I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Salvador Garriga. Eider Gardiazábal Rubial (ES) Mr President, I would like to start my speech by praising the work of the rapporteur and all the members of the Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (SURE Committee). Above all, I must praise their determination over the past year of work to achieve a majority agreement and majority support in Parliament for a report such as the one we are presenting today. This report is the road map that the European Union must follow if we want to meet the political, economic and social objectives we have set ourselves, and also if we want to overcome the challenges we are going to face in the coming years. This is the script we must follow in order to emerge from the crisis, and to ensure that our growth is intelligent, sustainable and integrated, as set forth in the Europe 2020 strategy. If we agree that the value of the European Union is much more than the sum of the 27 Member States that comprise it, if we are in favour of high quality, responsible agriculture, if we want to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, if we want to help our Mediterranean neighbours in their transition towards democracy, if we want to keep investing in research and innovation, if we want to carry on fighting climate change and investing in education, training and Erasmus grants, if we still believe in the cohesion policy as a tool for sustainable development and solidarity between our countries, and if we still support, for example, trans-European energy and transport networks - in short, if we still want more Europe - then we must call for a bigger budget for the European Union. That is why we warn in this report that without sufficient resources, we will not be able to achieve the objectives we have set ourselves. We know that some members of the Council do not agree with increasing the budget - we have seen as much here. They were not in favour in economic boom times either. Now they say it is because of the crisis, but they wanted cuts when the current financial perspective was negotiated too. That is why we are asking the Council, if it does not agree with this budget increase, to tell us which objectives it does not want to be met. In this report, we do not only set out the policies we want to achieve. We also show how to finance them and we put forward a discussion on own resources. This discussion, designed to bring to an end the false debate of the net contributors, seeks funding without hand outs, funding without exceptions, funding that is fair. We have put forward various options for doing this, but I have a preference for one of them, and Commissioner Lewandowski knows very well which one it is: it is the tax on financial transactions or, as it is known in many of our countries, the Robin Hood tax. This tax would make it possible to raise between EUR 200 billion and EUR 300 billion. It is a tax that penalises speculators and would force all those who have profited by gambling with our money to pay up. It is a tax that would increase transparency and reduce financial speculation and, above all, a tax that would not affect citizens, because it would force those directly responsible for the crisis to pay for their excesses. We are really only asking you for one thing: to set your sights higher. We ask you to set your sights higher to ensure that the European project continues on track and does not become stalled, because that would cost us our future. Alexander Alvaro (DE) Mr President, I was born into the European Union in 1975 and it has shaped my political life ever since. That is why it pains me all the more to have to pour cold water on this matter. When there is talk of increases, then discussions must lead to a consideration of the correct use of resources. Although the report is ambitious in seeking to find the greatest possible majority support from the House, I believe it lacks ambition in the objectives and aims it seeks to achieve in its current form. The agricultural and structural budgets are left untouched. However, more money is being sought for research and development. The only response that occurs to the House and to the report is more money, although there is no clear indication where this money is to come from. We hear talk of the Union's 'own resources', but there has been no definition of what these resources actually are. If people were serious about wanting structural reforms, they could have taken up the suggestion made by David Cameron, for example, of going to the Council and saying: funding is to be frozen, but we demand that unused resources should be able to be carried over to the next financial year, so that we can continue to spend them on viable projects and to save money. The future viability of the EU should not be measured in terms of decimal places. To this extent, I am more than a little disappointed by the present report. Derk Jan Eppink Mr President, this morning, Mr Daul came running to speak here in the plenary on the need for a bigger EU budget, but he was running so fast that he was running out of breath and had to stop speaking. This reflects very well the debate on the multiannual budget. The EU budget is fixed at about 1% of EU GDP; the Commission and Parliament say, 'that is not enough, we want more money'. Yet the EU is unable to spend the money available; billions of euro in regional cohesion funds remain unspent. Some money has to be returned to Member States. So why do you need more money if you cannot spend the money you have? But then, here in this Parliament we have a couple of 'Pavlovs': Mr Schulz, Mr Daul, Mr Verhofstadt, all absent now - they have run away instead of speaking here to focus the budget on quality rather than quantity, for example, by limiting regional and cohesion funds to the poorer Member States, saving 30% of those funds, and investing that money in innovation and future oriented policies. But I am sure that the EU Pavlovs will yet again run into the brick wall of the EU Council later this year. Isabelle Durant (FR) Mr President, as has already been said, it is clear that for a variety of reasons, some similar, some different, but in all cases exacerbated by the crisis, national budgets are struggling. In each of our countries, no matter what majority is in government, the budgetary situation needs to be addressed. We have two options. One is to all act alone, trying to reconcile spending and income, in some cases, according to what I have heard, worshiping austerity as an ends in its own right, making swingeing cuts to public spending and social benefits, thereby exacerbating the situation for citizens. I would plead in favour of the second option, namely pooling our budgetary efforts, making budgetary solidarity work, playing the own resources card, not least through a tax on financial transactions. That is the purpose of the budgetary complementarity that we want to achieve through this convention-style conference, a proposal that we made to the Council during the conciliation procedure and that we have reiterated in this report. We need to work together - the European Union, national parliaments and governments - to find a way of pooling our spending and budgetary approaches. We cannot have our cake and eat it: we cannot make cuts and, at the same time, invest in infrastructure. It is not possible to contribute less but receive more. I think that this convention-style model of dialogue between governments, the European Union, national parliaments and the European Parliament is the right way to rebuild confidence in Europe, both now and in the longer term. Cornelis de Jong (NL) Mr President, this is a very bad report and one which deserves to be thrown in the bin straight away. Right now, when people everywhere are facing incredibly painful austerity measures, it is too insane for words that we in the European Union should be proposing to spend even more money. To think that we are behaving in that way when things could be so different: no more throwing money around, no funding for cycle paths and crêperies in a country like the Netherlands. We should concentrate our Structural Funds on the poorest countries and only on innovative projects of pan-European significance in the rest of the Member States. According to the report, everything should remain as it is: more money has been requested for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, no reforms of the Structural Funds have been proposed, nowhere are there any concrete proposals for more efficiency. This Parliament ought to be ashamed of itself, in particular, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). While, in the Netherlands, nota bene, the Rutte cabinet is leaving the sick and the disabled out in the cold, the same groups in this House have a burning hole in their pockets. Austerity champions at home, big spenders in Brussels. This is an outrage! Claudio Morganti (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to emphasise several aspects of this important report, beginning with the European Union's revenue system. By now, it is clear that the current mechanism has too many inconsistencies, the most famous of which is the United Kingdom's correction mechanism. Various other corrections and compensations have since been added, making the EU revenue mechanism entirely inequitable and anything but transparent. At this point, it would be better to move towards a direct revenue system based exclusively on the gross domestic product of the Member States, or towards a shared and unified form of revenue such as value added tax, for example. Obviously, European citizens must not suffer any extra burdens, nor should Europe replace the tax policies of the Member States, which must remain autonomous and absolutely sovereign in this area. The report sets out various priorities, some of which are important and others less so, but in any case, they are all very expensive. We can raise resources by using instruments such as project bonds and Eurobonds, which must, however, be managed with the utmost rigour so as not to risk the creation of further debt, which would be dangerous. We, as Members of the European Parliament, can make an immediate contribution to improving Europe's finances. We must, at long last, choose a single location for the work of Parliament, which would bring savings of tens of millions of euro each year. This is not demagogy but simple ... (The President cut off the speaker) Diane Dodds Mr President, the mocking of Her Majesty's Government by Mr Verhofstadt when he shared with us his logic as to why Britain should hand over more money and more power to the EU was further evidence of the palpable disdain in which the UK, its national government and its citizens are held by some in this House. What Mr Verhofstadt failed to mention is that other savings are available to the UK. Businesses forced to spend GBP 30 million to comply with EU regulations could save this by taking back control from Europe. UK fishermen would love to have the GBP 3.3 billion in their pockets: the value of the catch lost when the EU let other countries fish in their territorial waters. Commissioner, you state that the European budget is not a duplication of a national budget. However, it cannot be divorced from the realities of its citizens. Currently, the UK contribution is GBP 6.4 billion, rising to over GBP 10 billion if the rebate goes. It can only be met by raising taxes, cutting services, schools ... (The President cut off the speaker) Othmar Karas (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are five questions we need to ask ourselves: The first is: what budget is required for the 2020 growth and employment strategy? Secondly: what budget is required by a currency union? Thirdly: what potential is open to us to make savings? Fourthly: what budget is required by the United States of Europe? Fifthly: what role is Europe 2020 to play? Do we want to play a role at all? We, the European Parliament, take our responsibilities seriously. We deal in plain speaking. In Austria, we have a saying: if you do not pay up, the band does not play. We want to achieve our goals, meet our obligations, accept the challenges and keep our promises. More functions, greater competitiveness, more sustainable growth, more jobs, more research and further integration cannot be achieved with less money, without a financial review, without an evaluation of existing disbursement of funds and without our own resources. More Europe will also create a potential for savings in the Member States. More Europe will also create more efficiency and is our response to globalisation, to the future and to sovereign debt. What is it that we want? We do not want to freeze the budget. Anyone seeking to freeze the budget will damage Europe and weaken our ability to fulfil our duties to our citizens. We want to introduce a transaction levy as a resource of our own, accepting the challenges and adhering to the Treaty rather than burying our heads in the sand. That is our strategy. Let us really set the ball rolling and vote in favour of this report. Ivailo Kalfin (BG) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the basic theme in Salvador Garriga's report is not about finances but policies. I would like to thank him and Jutta Haug, as well as all the fellow Members on the committee, for having this as the predominant understanding during the work carried out throughout the whole year. Financial resources are only a means of achieving the objectives. Policies are what is important and what needs to be highlighted when the next financial framework is being discussed. We are all aware that budgets are being cut in all the European Union's Member States. This will also continue in the coming years. These cuts are part of efforts to exit the crisis. However, we must not forget that exiting the crisis also has European aspects: the economic development plan; financial market regulations to prevent this crisis from recurring; the measures currently being discussed on economic governance in the European Union; EU measures which only make national measures more efficient. This is why it is not appropriate for national measures aimed at tackling the crisis and its consequences to be made to clash with European measures. Involvement in the European Union provides added value. Added value and solidarity are not empty phrases. Explaining to Dutch taxpayers that their contributions to the European Union are being increased is not the same as explaining to Bulgarian or Polish farmers that the subsidy they are receiving is three times less and that they are obliged to compete in the same competitive market. It is not easy to make accusations against Greek taxpayers, who are going through extremely hard times at the moment because the European finance system obtained a huge amount of money from Greece only a few years ago. Solidarity has specific aspects. These aspects are also linked to the priorities set by the European Union for the coming years. No breakthrough can be achieved for the scientific sector, energy, transport, economic governance or digital technologies unless they are supported by common European policies. Indeed, we also need to think about how to change the current European budget. It does contain reserves and they need to be requested. However, I will give you one example. These reserves cannot be made available by, for example, all the policies or objectives relating to energy efficiency, transport and so on being incorporated into the cohesion policy. Cutting the resources from existing programmes will not replace the need for additional new resources if we want to set new objectives for the European Union, if we want European integration to provide real added value, including for taxpayers, who rightly watch every penny allocated to the European budget. This is why we also need to look at the European budget as part of one system: both for economic governance and for managing the single currency. This minimum 5% increase, which is being questioned, is insufficient for resolving all these issues. This is why we must also ask questions about European Project Bonds, Eurobonds and other means of funding. Marit Paulsen (SV) Mr President, I have to say that in all my years in this Parliament, the work of the Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 is the most pleasant and the most visionary, in short, the most enjoyable - it really is very fine work. It includes everything that is necessary and positive for Europe's future. However, I am personally extremely concerned about what we did not do, and that is set priorities. We have taken on board all of the new challenges, but we have also retained all of the old ones. It will perhaps not be possible to deal with both. We should have set priorities. We should have been much more rigorous in setting priorities, but what is most worrying of all in this context is the fact that we have left the setting of priorities to the Council. That does not bode well for the future, ladies and gentlemen. Martin Callanan Mr President, the public, the hardworking taxpayers across Europe who actually earn the money which so many in this place are so keen to spend, want Europe to do less and they want Europe to do it better. They want a lean European budget which takes into account the fact that, whether we like it or not, we are living in an age of austerity. They want Europe to focus on the very limited number of areas where Europe can actually add value, and leave the rest of the activities to our Member States. Unfortunately, this report proposes none of these things. Let us be clear: the suggestion of a 5% increase is completely unacceptable and the idea of so-called own resources is equally unacceptable - it is just a power-grab by the EU. The budget should be modernised, funds should be reallocated to programmes which actually deliver future benefits and not cover up past failures. Financing of euro bail-outs should be left to those countries that actually wanted to join the euro in the first place. Those of us who warned that it was a mistake should not be forced to contribute to it. The committee had a chance to pursue many of these constructive and future-proof suggestions; they rejected it. They have done none of those things and the report should be rejected by this House. László Surján (HU) Mr President, the report we have in front of us is perhaps the most important one of this period. The European Parliament is the first among the institutions to draft its thoughts about the next seven years, but without prejudice to the Commission's right to submit proposals. However, this is the only possibility to avoid a scandal about our right to consent that would oblige us to reject the proposal of the Council. Thus, all of our partners know what the European Parliament wants and they can incorporate that into their ideas as far as possible. To my dear fellow Members, may I recommend two documents that are worth reading before you turn your thoughts to rude criticism: the Treaty of Lisbon and the report itself. Supporting own resources is no more, no less than what is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon. I consider the message that the European budget needs a slight increase to be very important. Slight in a sense that this 5% will also be modified by inflation, which means that we are not talking about an abnormal increase. It is not about increasing the expenditure on agriculture or cohesion, but about the fact that these cannot be decreased. Miklós Zrínyi, a writer of dual Croatian-Hungarian origin who lived in the 1600s said - in connection with the Turks at that time - 'Do not hurt the Hungarians!' Quoting his words I say: Do not hurt the agricultural policy; do not hurt the cohesion policy; because those who hurt these policies not only hurt the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Slovaks, but all citizens of the European nations. The lesser the voters' support behind a politician, the more he refers to citizens. I believe that we, who enjoy the support of a greater political force, likewise represent citizens' interests, and this is the reason why we say: do not hurt the agricultural policy and cohesion! Derek Vaughan Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the Chair for the work they have done on this report. The debate today on the report highlights that there will be a fight in the Council on a number of issues, including the overall increase, the UK rebate and own resources. To be fair, apart from the issue of the UK rebate where UK Members will be in a minority of one, I think the Parliament has tried to reach some compromises. When you have long, complicated and important reports like this, compromise is almost inevitable, but I do welcome some of the compromises. I welcome the compromise on the duration and the structure of the next financial perspective. I also welcome the compromise on cohesion policy. I believe that cohesion policy is vital if we are to achieve jobs and growth in the EU post-2013. Therefore, for cohesion policy, we need adequate funding at least at the level we have now, if not more into the future. The next financial perspective must be about jobs and growth if it is to be relevant to citizens. Therefore, as well as a strong cohesion policy, we also need policies for funding research and development in our universities and SMEs. FP8 therefore needs adequate funding for the future. We also need to invest in our infrastructure in the European Union - infrastructure like transport, energy and improving broadband in many rural areas - and our rural areas themselves should not be forgotten. To deliver all these policies on jobs and growth, we need delivery mechanisms. We also need partners. (The President cut off the speaker) Riikka Manner (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, firstly, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur for an excellent report and for his excellent work on the special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013. One of the main objectives of future financial frameworks is to establish instruments to take the EU 2020 strategy to the grassroots level. There is a realisation in this report that, without a cohesion and agricultural policy that is robust and strong in terms of its budget, this objective will not succeed. Cohesion policy, for example, is not the only tangible instrument that will enable us to develop innovations and create jobs and growth. We need reform, but we can also implement it within these policy sectors. Consequently, I appeal to you, Commissioner, to ensure that, in the forthcoming financial period, both regional policy and agricultural policy maintain their existing budget levels, in accordance with Parliament's opinion. I am, moreover, glad that the report also gives consideration to regions where conditions are especially tough, such as the sparsely populated areas of the north. They will also need their own additional budgets in the forthcoming financial period Peter van Dalen (NL) Mr President, the key word for Europe is 'confidence'. The European institutions in general, and the European Parliament in particular, need to restore confidence among the citizens. How can that be achieved? Firstly, not with more Europe or more money for Europe, but with a better Europe, a Europe with an added value, and Europe should not interfere with matters, such as sport or tourism, which Member States can deal with perfectly well on their own. Secondly, commit the cohesion fund to the genuinely poor regions in Europe. We still have fifty percent going to rich Member States, such as Germany and France. This is unacceptable. If we sort this out, we will be able to rein in the unnecessary throwing around of money and still come out with a net profit. Thirdly, investment in future-proof agriculture and industry. The Polledo report has been a failure. Everything and more has been chucked into one big melting pot and our citizens are expected to digest this gunge. Bon appetit, but be careful you do not choke on it. José Manuel Fernandes (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work he has done, which has resulted in a report that enables a good start to be made on building a Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), and that constitutes a challenge for the Commission and the Council. This is an ambitious report, whilst simultaneously being a realistic report. I hope that all the institutions have drawn the correct conclusions from the financial, economic and social crisis that is slow to loosen its grip on us. One conclusion is clear to me: only a united Europe that shows solidarity and strengthened, harmonised and convergent economic governance will be up to the task of successfully confronting the political challenges we have before us. We need more and better Europe. We need to give priority to the Community method rather than the intergovernmental method. We need to increase the budget. The Europe 2020 strategy has been agreed, its priorities are clear and its objectives are measurable. It will be the guide for the next financial perspectives. However, this strategy will only be successful if there is a budget corresponding to its activities; to its objectives. As such, the MFF needs to have the financial backing to match the ambition and commitment of the Europe 2020 strategy. Cohesion policy is also the result of the solidarity principle. It is important that this cohesion be economic, social and territorial, and that it act as a pull on the poorer regions. I therefore believe it essential that funding for cohesion policy at least remain at the same levels, along with funding for the common agricultural policy (CAP). It is also important to make progress towards an MFF, more than 80% of whose funds do not come from national budgets. Kinga Göncz (HU) Mr President, the crisis compels us to review both national and European Union budgets from the aspect of efficiency and to see how they serve our goals, and how much added value, European added value, they bring to this effect. I would like to talk about a field that has not been mentioned so far today, namely, cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, which was elevated from the competence of Member States to EU policy level by the Treaty of Lisbon. Our desire to achieve great improvement in this field must be reflected in the subsequent budget period. We definitely have to provide funds for the Stockholm programme, which is a rather ambitious programme. Europe is in need of well-educated immigrants who reach Europe in compliance with the regulations, and of a common migration policy with adequate resources. The events in North Africa have drawn attention once again to the importance of a common European immigration policy, and have shown the need for integration supported by resources and for European solidarity. The last few months have also highlighted the fact that protection of our common values, non-discrimination and human rights also need protection and resources, that we need to simplify the use of resources for the management of extraordinary situations, and that we need our own resources to create a better, stronger and more extensive Europe in the coming period. James Elles Mr President, congratulations to the rapporteur for all the work he has done. It is tremendous in terms of the achievement of trying to get a consensus. There are three areas for amendment which I would plead in favour of. Firstly, in the longer term, we need a five-year financial perspective. If it is the case that 2020 is a seven-year dimension, we should have an absolute condition that the next one will be for a five-year period. Secondly, there is insufficient work done on looking at how we get a statement of assurance for expenditure. Those who are arguing for more money at a European level would have a stronger case if we knew that we had an absolute cast-iron understanding of where the money actually goes. Last but not least, in reply to Mr Verhofstadt, it is unwise to single out any one Member State when there are a number of Member States which are net contributors to the budget. I would urge very strongly that we should have a limit on the net contribution of Member States as a percentage of GDP because, looking forward, it is unrealistic to think you can get Member States' approval when their net contributions are doubling at a time of significant austerity. Markus Pieper (DE) Mr President, the 5% increase in the budget is explained by spending on the External Action Service, border protection, the war on terrorism, an increase in development aid, support for research and transnational infrastructure. Overall, this request from Parliament is absolutely justified. However, Parliament is also passing up an opportunity with the Garriga Polledo report. We would have more credibility if we were to show where Europe can be more efficient and where money can be saved. This certainly includes the large number of agencies that enjoy an extremely expensive autonomous existence, and agriculture, where some Member States have still not succeeded in introducing a more market-appropriate flat-rate acreage payment scheme. As the rapporteur for the future of structural policy, I would also say that European cohesion policy should also be included here. Happily, many regions have succeeded in exceeding the threshold for the maximum funding of 75%. However, if there is less poverty in the various regions of Europe, then European solidarity may also recede. The money saved could be better invested in European added value, for example, in a smart link between Structural Funds and transnational networks in the border regions. This is currently under discussion by the Committee on Regional Development, as is a proposal for an intermediate category of 75 to 90% GDP, as suggested in the Garriga Polledo report. Perhaps Mrs Krehl was dreaming if she believed that we had already agreed on a compromise in the Committee on Regional Development. I do not believe that the temporary Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 is the right body to make recommendations for such an intermediate category. We are making things too easy for ourselves if we simply also define the more prosperous regions as requiring particular support. The way I see it, this is an invitation to waste money. We are leaving the tried and tested phasing-out/phasing-in system but are no longer offering any incentive. We are guaranteeing a permanent subsidy for all regions almost up to a level of average economic strength. There can be no future for a system like this in European regional policy. We therefore need to drop paragraph 73 from the report. Otherwise, the report is acceptable. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8)) Elisabeth Schroedter (DE) Mr President, Mr Pieper, I am surprised to hear you say that Mrs Krehl must be dreaming. A large majority voted in favour of the intermediate goal when the vote was held in the Committee on Regional Development. I believe that we will get the backing of the majority here, too, because there is majority support for the solidarity of the regions. That is why we need this intermediate goal. I should be interested to know why you refer to this majority as a dream. President Mr Pieper, can you explain why it is a dream? Markus Pieper (DE) Mr President, Mrs Schroedter, this is your perception of the issue. We in the Committee on Regional Development have a different proposal from the one contained in the Garriga Polledo report. That is my first point. My second point is that significant fundamental resistance to the intermediate category still exists within the political groupings. You are well aware of this. That is why I find your question surprising. I think that you are dreaming when you simply claim that we have come up with compromises and that these are unambiguous. Anyway, it is a matter for the Committee on Regional Development to prepare the matter for debate in plenary. I am very surprised by your extremely optimistic view that our work is complete. Estelle Grelier (FR) Mr President, the debate on the European Union's financial perspective raises questions about the European project, its scope and its ambition. This report is laudable because it seeks to mobilise the Union's budgetary resources in order to comply with the Europe 2020 strategy. This puts it at odds with the narrow vision of most Member States. Whereas Member States see Europe in terms of their financial contribution, which they want to see reduced, and the financial returns, which they want to see increased, this report argues in favour of strong and integrated Community policies, be they long-established policies or new competences under the Treaty of Lisbon. Consequently, this own-initiative report by Parliament should form the basis for future discussions, even if, in my view, it does err on the side of consensus and caution. It is true that a 5% increase in the European budget would be better than the Member States' budgetary plans for 2012. However, the crux of the matter - and probably the stumbling block - will be agreeing a figure that tallies with the policies described in the report. We are aware of the downsides of austerity policies: how they affect employment and have left growing numbers of citizens despairing. We have a responsibility to finance countercyclical policies, not least through a strong cohesion policy, Mr Pieper, which promotes public investment and employment in all European regions. I would like to stress the importance of creating an intermediate regions category to ensure that the allocation of Structural Funds accurately reflects economic and social realities in the regions. Let me conclude by saying that we need to impose a tax on financial speculation, which would increase our citizens' support for a well-financed Europe. Gunnar Hökmark Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for highlighting the number of challenges in front of us. I also welcome the very clear message in the report calling for a significant increase in research and science because that is one of the priorities we need to have. I would like to say - and I say this to the Commission - that politics and leadership are about priorities. Without priorities, there is no leadership. There are always those tasks and challenges that are more important than others. That is the case with the budget of the European Union as well as in Member States. We need to further increase research and science, but we also need to increase the amount of science and research in regional funding. We need to take into consideration the development of the agricultural markets and decrease the spending there. But let us remember that we need to set priorities at all levels, at the European level as well as in Member States. I must say that I dislike EU-bashing or Brussels-bashing, but I also dislike Member States-bashing, because it diminishes the importance of the spending we have in the Member States: health care, social security, pensions, education. This is not a conflict between the EU and the Member States. This is an ongoing struggle for leadership and priorities. If we do not dare to set those priorities, we do not show leadership. I must say that if we cannot understand the tough situation Member States are in today, we do not understand the reality for citizens. We need to set priorities and not solve problems just by increasing budgets. So I would ask the Commissioner to show leadership, to be courageous, and to remember that research and science, infrastructure ... (The President cut off the speaker) Andrea Cozzolino (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are about to vote on a highly important strategic document that provides a solid framework of reference for financial perspectives after 2013. It begins with the request for coherence between objectives and instruments, and between the new role that the European institutions must perform - in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon and the recession - and the resources that, together, we decide to invest. Such coherence also implies a serious response to the demand for innovation from the public, from the recipients of EU policies, and from Europe's social groups and industries. We did the same for cohesion, which is a crucial issue for deciding what we want the European Union to be in the coming years. Experience shows that cohesion is now a vital nexus of the European project, and an important asset for everyone to safeguard, protect and renew. On this front, the effort made on the idea of introducing an intermediate category of regions is particularly important, above all, because in a number of cases, the years of recession that we are emerging from have intensified internal divisions, further increasing the importance of effective and adequate support for less developed regions in Europe, combating wastage and bringing development policy sharply into focus. However, I maintain that the challenge of intermediate categories and the safeguard clause is one that we must take on in order to begin a new phase in Europe's cohesion policy and also to realise, within the cohesion policy, the more balanced and sustainable development that we want to assure for Europe over the coming years. Frank Engel (FR) Mr President, the 500 million citizens of the European Union currently make up over 8% of the world's population. By 2050, that figure will be 5% or 6%. In 2100, we will make up 3% of that population. This throng of Europeans continues to maintain, largely through national budgets, 2 000 embassies, 27 armies, 50 joint forces and more. I believe China is currently employing extra deputy ministers just to receive all the mighty European ministers who arrive to petition Beijing for favours and bilateral agreements. All of this is starting to look ridiculous on the world stage. Dividing up 8% of the world's population between 30 sovereign budgetary policies is madness. Essentially, that sovereignty remains absolute. Europe manages 2.5% or one-fortieth of total budgetary expenditure in Europe. The Member States' contributions make up one-fortieth of their national spending. Yet apparently, even that is too much. Let us now consider the question of own resources or maybe another time. Let us stop carping about the 2.5% of public spending with which we are supposed to maintain the whole apparatus required to implement the 2020 strategy and to fulfil all the responsibilities accorded to us under the Treaty of Lisbon. We did not devise the strategy and competences: it was the Member States who did that. In view of these realities, Mr Garriga Polledo's report is modest. Yet there are those who want to restrict us yet further and who would deem the report ambitious. That is why this House should adopt the report. Frédéric Daerden (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report is vital to the future of the European project, which should involve solidarity and ambitious aims, particularly in view of the budgetary crises that Member States are currently struggling with. Taking an ultra-liberal approach, the majority of Heads of State or Government in the Council are choosing to keep slashing budgets wildly and are willing to sacrifice investment in key forward-looking policies such as those funded by
{'language': 'en'}