1982 BUDGET PROCEDURE: FIRST READING IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The Parliament approves the draft budget for 1982 at the first reading, on the basis of the amendment proposals made by the Committee on Budgets (rapporteur Spinelli).

As rapporteur, Spinelli has always emphasized the great responsibility of the Council and of Governments for the considerable extent to which the financial policy of the Community is paralysed, criticizing at the same time the attitude of resignation adopted by the Commission, which ought instead to have submitted in due time proposals for reform of the agricultural policy, increase of own resources and development of structural policies.

To ensure that the Commission decides to change its working methods and abandons its political attitude of resignation, Spinelli had asked the Committee on Budgets to threaten to use its Sword of Damocles, the censure motion, the European Parliament's last resort in exercising political control over the executive. Neither the Committee on Budgets nor the Assembly adopts Spinelli line: thus, the Commission and the Council have no difficulty in maintaining the usual accounting approach in this budget procedure too.

In conformity with his attitude in the House, Spinelli abstained from the final vote on the resolution. In "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli editor. (EP, 3-4 November 1981)

Mr President, at this sitting of the European Parliament, which will be a working session par excellence, I propose to use one of the Community's working languages.

Following the example of Mr Brandt, Mr Pannella and others in this House, I wish in this way to make my own modest contribution to the solution of our language problem, a solution that can in no way be imposed, but must rely on the willingness of each and every one of us to use, whenever possible, one of the languages which have now established themselves as linguae francae. I am speaking French rather than English because I feel that I shall do the French language lesser injury than I would the English.

Mr President, it is for the third time that this directly elected Parliament will be debating on and adopting a budget. In 1979 it rejected the budget, because it did not meet the conditions set out in its resolution of 7 November 1979. Parliament could have adopted that budget only if the Council had withdrawn its unwarranted cuts in non-compulsory expenditure and if the first steps to curb agricultural spending had actually been taken.

In 1980, during the budget debate, Parliament issued a solemn warning to the new Commission and the Council that in 1981 a preliminary draft budget would have to be submitted that was based on the adoption during the financial year of the agricultural and fiscal reforms required, and that would translate into financial terms an overall policy striking a balance between its individual sectors and worthy of a forward-looking Community.

In March 1981, before the Commission presented its preliminary draft and before the budgetary procedure got under way, Parliament asked the Commission to bring forward to mid-April the date for the submission of its proposals to amend agricultural regulations and create new own resources so that it might take these into account in the preliminary draft it was to adopt in mid-May.

Some months later, after listening to the Council's presentation of its draft budget, Parliament noted that it offered stagnation at a time when development of the Community was more vital than ever before. It asked the Commission to present during the course of October a duly reasoned and complete timetable for the submission of its proposed decisions and regulations, so as to enable Parliament, at the first reading of the draft budget, to take account of their financial implications for the 1982 budget.

Let no one think that Parliament has been so exacting in budgetary matters without having formed its own ideas as to the policies the Community ought to be pursuing. Quite the contrary: confronted by the inertia - to put it at its mildest - by the pettifogging attitude displayed by the Commission, Parliament took the initiative of laying down a whole series of precise guidelines for the major sectors of the Community's economic, monetary and fiscal policies. A list of these sectors appears under paragraph (c) of the motion for a resolution, so it would be superfluous for me to enumerate them now.

Given the impossibility of sustaining and developing these policies within the present limits on the Community's own resources Parliament put in a whole year's hard work on a resolution on own resources. In that resolution, which outlined proposals for the establishment in the medium term of a Community tax system more equitable than the existing one, Parliament advanced three short-term objectives: first, removal of the 1 % ceiling on VAT, accompanied by the harmonious development of all the policies needed by the Community; second, introduction of a system of fiscal equalization between countries with a low per capita income and countries with a high per capita income, everyone pulling together to help even out the disparities that might remain despite the overall impact of Community policies; third, establishment of a system of five-year agreements between the Community and the Member States with a view to the implementation of long-term programmes for the development of the Community, with an appropriate

distribution of resources between it and the Member States.

I want to emphasize that it was Parliament which, by that proposal, invited the Council and Commission to put an end to our present absurd system, under which there is no correlation between the national and Community budgets, under which the Community cannot embark on any serious long-term project and under which each year sees a dialogue of the deaf between Community institutions and representatives of the Member States.

So don't come and tell us that all this Parliament ever thinks about is reckless spending of Community funds! I may well be that our resolution leave gaps here and there, even contradictions, but it is after all the responsibility of the Commission to put a coherent programme of government before the legislative body. Parliament has assumed that responsibility only because the Commission has failed to do so. It has quite clearly done no more than spell out the shortcomings, although in doing so it has indicated plainly enough the general policy lines recommended by this House. Parliament has time and again urged the Commission to translate its recommendations into draft decisions.

The replies we have elicited from the Council and Commission have always been wrapped up in an effusion of compliments and praise for Parliament's work, of admiration for the valuable role it plays, of unctuous assurances of cooperation with it. But, underneath all that luxuriant verbal vegetation it is not difficult to discern a cold and calculated resolve to pay very little heed to what this Parliament wants, a cold and calculated resolve to subdue and tame this Assembly, which has developed exalted ideas above its station merely because it has been elected but which must be taught to confine itself to the outpouring of sentiments, wishes, expressions of indignation or satisfaction, which must be taught that it is not and can never become a democratic force - the democratic force it imagines itself to be - that it is wrong in thinking it can play a part in the formulation of Community policies and even more wrong in believing it can do so to an ever-increasing extent.

The Commission, the taming of which appears unfortunately to have been virtually accomplished, has ignored the requests we addressed to it in the March guidelines, in the Pfennig resolution and in the resolution we adopted in September. We urged the establishment of a political link between the 1982 budget and the draft decision it was required to submit under the terms of the mandate of 30 May, for that link would have enabled us to enter in the budget the initial consequences of the new policies which would have to get off the ground. The Commission replied coldly that it was impossible, for the preliminary draft could not take the exigencies of the mandate into account. As to all our resolutions, it appeared to be blissfully unawere of their existence. Eventually, the Commission said that its refusal to forge that political link was based on purely technical grounds. In other words it was simply refusing to adopt a policy, to defend it and to translate it into precise proposals.

The 'technical reasons' are now plain to see. The fact is that the Commission, contrary to what Parliament was asking it to do, has nor presented draft decisions and does not intend to do so in the future. It merely has a programme of memorandums which, after fleeting consideration in the Council and a few minutes' debate in this Chamber, will provide its staff with the opportunity to indulge in interminable discussions with COREPER's staff. It has every hope, of course, that by the end of this gargantuan feast it will be able to offer us a few crumbs of comfort. The more recent members of the Commission may perhaps be unfamiliar with it, but we old friends - alas, I do not see Mr Haferkamp or Mr Ortoli in our midst - we know this depressing charade with the memorandums only too well. However, we shall go into all that in greater detail in two week's time. I make the point here merely to show why this budget starts off with the crippling handicap of having no foundation in political vision. And don't tell us

that it is a transitional budget. Transition implies movement towards something, whereas the text submitted by the Commission to the budgetary authority is designed to permit the Community to struggle along from one day to the next, that and nothing more.

The Council, our partner within the budgetary authority, has been even more dry and laconic in its attitude towards Parliament and its requests. The Treaty requires it to explain why it departs from the preliminary draft. Now in this instance the Council has slashed structural and cooperation expenditure by around 700 000 ECU. Its terse explanatory memorandum represents merely a summary of the cuts made, with not a trace of an explanation for them. For it is no explanation to state in a few lines that we are in a period of severe budgetary austerity. We should have been told why this austerity should strike above all at structural policies, which are not inflationary as they help to raise productivity, whilst sparing price support expenditure, which is by its very nature inflationary. It should have been demonstrated to us - as if that were possible - why the present stagnation of the Community serves the interests of Europe and each of its states.

It is thus to this draft budget of stagnation, born of a preliminary draft devoid of political vision, that the committees of Parliament, and in particular the Committee on Budgets, have had to address their minds. Many of my colleagues in this House told me of their initial reaction to this draft, which was that it deserved to be rejected even more than its predecessor of two years ago. I sought to persuade them otherwise, and the Committee on Budgets never really considered that possibility. Two years ago rejection was politically necessary to underline Parliament's disapproval. But rejection could scarcely be more than a cleat token of discontent. As the provisional twelfths system could apply for a whole year, the Council only had to drag out the preparation of the new draft until the middle of the year, after which half the purpose behind the dispute would have melted away, and the other half might have done as well. Rejection was certainly a weapon available to Parliament, but it was unfortunately a do

uble-edged sword. The champions of stagnation can wish for nothing better than rejection, since the provisional twelfths would merely accentuate stagnation.

A basic and profound sense of responsibility towards the Community therefore prompted all the parliamentary committees to get to work to see what improvements might be made in this miserable draft. This was no simple task, because two problems occurred - one connected with the content of the draft itself, the other with the realignment of currencies - which gave rise to three letters of amendment, two from the Commission, one from the Council. The Committee on Budgets was thus twice obliged to revise its calculations in order to take account of the corrections in the latter. I must point out that the Council's letter of amendment was not forwarded to Parliament within the time limits laid down in the Treaty, thus creating additional problems for our committee, which was forced to work in extremely difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, the Committee on Budgets decided, under protest, so as not to complicate matters even more, to take this letter of amendment into considera-tion in amending and modifying the

draft budget.

I should like now to outline the general conclusions arrived at by the Committee on Budgets, with particular reference to those chapters which gave rise to difficulties. I shall begin with three problems connected with the structure of the budget. Two of them are very important, the third less so.

Firstly, the same old dispute occurs every year between the Council, Commission and Parliament on the list of items of expenditure which, pursuant to the revised Article 203, arise necessarily from the Treaty or from acts adopted in accordance therewith. In this case we normally refer to compulsory expenditure, and the items under that heading are important because they are approved under a procedure different from that applied to all the rest of the budget - and I stress all the rest of the budget - in other words all remaining expenditure and all revenue. This list of compulsory items also determines the amount of non-compulsory expenditure, which in turn decides the maximum rate and the margin for manoeuvre subject to which Parliament has the last word. Each institution draws up its own list, knowing that it cannot impose it on the two others, since this would encroach unilaterally on their powers. Since the Treaty does not stipulate who has the final say on the list, the three institutions must reach agr

eement. If no agreement is reached on an item of expenditure then it is regarded as compulsory and its adoption thereafter automatically follows the normal budgetary procedure. The items contained in Parliament's list all appear in the two others. More are added by the Commission and more again by the Council. After waiting in vain year after year for an end to the dispute, the Committee on Budgets asked Mrs Veil to invite the Council to initiate the conciliation procedure with the Commission and Parliament so as to arrive at a consensus on a common list. Parliament has decided to regard as compulsory, at both the first and second readings, only expenditure recognized as such by all three institutions. In the absence of an agreement Parliament will treat as compulsory all the items on its own list, since it is the only one accepted in its entirety by all three parties. We still await a response from the Council to our request for urgent conciliation before the Council embarks on its second reading. For the t

ime being we are submitting to you the changes proposed, in the form of amendments and modifications according to our own list, a list we shall maintain until such time as agreement is reached, which is, I repeat. our objective.

Secondly, we come to the entry of borrowing and lending in the budget. The importance of this financial instrument is increasing with every year. Under no circumstances can Parliament accept the administration of borrowing and lending outside the budget and outside the scope of parliamentary control. In 1977 the budgetary authority, in other words Parliament and Council, approved the entry of borrowing under revenue and of costs under expenditure. We readily admit that this arrangement is not a satisfactory one. We invited the Council to work out with us an appropriate amendment of the Financial Regulation and, perhaps naively, we agreed that in the meantime borrowing and lending should not be budgetized. The result of this concession is that for four years the Council has produced no progress on the draft regulation, conciliation between us has been at a standstill, and borrowing and lending are still immune from our control. Now we have had enough! The Committee on Budgets invites you, in two of its amendm

ents, to return to the 1977 formula.

We are ready to accept a more appropriate form of entry, provided that it in no way undermines Parliaments powers. In the past, Parliament always approved at the first reading the excellent formula proposed by the Commission ad invariably rejected by the Council 'Until the new Financial Regulation sees the light of day, better an imperfect entry than none at all.

Thirdly, the Committee on Budgets invites you to reinstate the commitments columns in Volume 4. This presentation makes things much clearer for everyone. Since their insertion has neither financial nor legal implications for the budget and since no amendment of the Financial Regulation is necessary for a simple change in the graphic presentation, it is difficult to understand why COREPER's Budget Committee took it into its head to delete these columns.

Mr President, I shall now look at the appropriations under each title in turn. The rapporteurs for the specialist committees will go into the details and, when it comes to the vote, I shall tell you what our committee's views are on each amendment or modification.

It is very difficult to form a clear picture of Titles I and 2 - Guarantee Section - because of the substantial changes brought about by the letters of amendment. The Commission's first letter brought good news, namely that in the light of more precise forecasts of production and world prices it was possible to reduce EAGGF appropriations for refunds by about 350m ECU and to allow for a net decrease in revenue of agricultural origin of 83m ECU.

The ink on this letter of amendment was barely dry when the monetary upheaval in the EMS of 2 October obliged the Commission to revise its calculations, establishing that virtually all the appropriations saved under the first letter had to be assigned to compensatory amounts, which would rise by 365m ECU. The Council accepted the Commission's figures in this area but turned down the decrease in revenue of agricultural origin. Before the letter of amendment it had already transferred around 310m ECU to Chapter 100 in response to Parliament's wish to earmark this sum for agricultural market organizations. It went on to add 365m ECU in respect of additional compensatory amounts pending further clarification as to the precise sums involved.

The Committee on Budgets, which had made substantial cuts in several chapters under the EAGGF (Guarantee Section) and sizeable transfers to Chapter 100, saw a goodly proportion of its modifications nullified by the changes introduced by the Council's letter of amendment. However, the committee asks you not merely to rubber-stamp the Council's corrections but over and above that to add the reductions and transfers to Chapter 100 it had already approved. These amount respectively to about 96m ECU in the case of the reductions and 127m ECU in the case of the transfers. It also asks you to reinstate in the revenue the reductions in levies, for agro-monetary effects are not confined to expenditure. The purpose of these reductions and transfers is to keep the tightest possible hold on the purse strings in the hope of establishing a better balance between EAGGF Guarantee and other appropriations. For the same reason the Committee on Budgets did not accept certain increases in appropriations proposed by the Committe

e on Agriculture, although these will probably be withdrawn after the Council's letter of amendment.

Our committee could not blindly accept the compensatory amounts entered by the Council under Chapter 100. It suggests that you reject this sum, at the same time adding a rider. We can in fact see that an increase in compensatory amouns will be necessary, but we want the Commission and the Council to substantiate their figure. We hope that between the first and second readings Parliament will be given the explanations required. Lastly, the Committee on Budgets cannot endorse the modifications proposed by the Committee on Agriculture transferring to Title 9 refunds in respect of food aid under the EAGGF (Guarantee Section). The committee agrees with the Council that this expenditure is the direct consequence of agricultural market regulations and they are rightly entered in Titles 1 and 2. To remove them to other headings would simply give the impression of having cut agricultural expenditure without actually having done so.

Before leaving these two titles I must tell you that I shall of course be asking you to vote for all the modifications supported by the Committee on Budgets, but that the political significance of these reductions in appropriations and transfers to Chapter 100 is somewhat limited. It is highly probabile that the Council, which has already reached agreement on the appropriations allocated to these titles and which wants to have the final say, will reinstate its own figures.

But it is not there that the basic reason for this limited significance lies. The basic reason is to be found elsewhere. Whereas the figures entered in the other titles show the sums which the budgetary authority authorizes the Commission to spend, Titles 1 and 2 contain merely forecasts, and rough forecasts at that, since they can be affected by the weather and by prices on world markets. The Commission is not required to spend the appropriations because they are entered under these titles; it must spend when certain price levels, preordained in our regulations and decided upon by our Council of Agriculture Ministers well in advance, are attained. If at that time the appropriations in Titles 1 and 2 prove insufficient then we shall be obliged to release unconditionally the appropri-ations frozen under Chapter 100 and, if that is still not enough, we shall have to adopt a supplementary budget. If, on the other hand, these price levels are not attained, then the Commission will proudly announce letters of ame

ndment similar to the ones we have just had, providing for a reduction in the appropriations needed for the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF. I am one of those who would like to see changes in our agricultural regulations, but until that time comes this is how Titles 1 and 2 of the budget will be implemented.

I now go on to the other titles. Generally speaking the specialist committees and the Committee on Budgets have followed Parliament's guidelines, to the effect that the figures in the preliminary draft should be reinstated. With some titles these totals have been slightly exceeded, and the rapporteurs will explain why.

I shall confine myself to a few brief comments on each title. In the case of Title 3, the Committee on Budgets asks you to reinstate the. appropriation in the preliminary draft for common measures to improve fisheries structures. As for the other chapters, it proposes figures below those entered in the preliminary draft, in accordance with the recommendations of the committee concerned. Hardly any changes have been made by the Council to Title 4, EAGGF (Guidance Section), and the Committee on Budgets proposes that the appropriation in the draft budget be allowed to stand. Under Title 5, regional policy, our committee suggests the reinstatement of the sums shown in the preliminary draft. It asks you, however, to transfer to Chapter 100 the differences between the preliminary draft and draft budget appropriations in order to allow better preventive supervision of the way this money is used. You will note in that connection Parliament's wish to see adopted as quickly as possible the new Regional Fund regulation

, which will abolish the strange conception entertained at the moment, according to which the Fund is merely an instrument for the partial and automatic financing of the Member States' regional programmes, the financing being based on preestablished national distribution systems.

As rapporteur, I shall be asking you to approve this transfer to Chapter 100, which will tie the Commission's hands in regard to 170m ECU in payments and 323m ECU in commitments.

But I must confess that this decision leaves me yearning for the day when the Commission shakes off the yoke imposed upon it by the Council, a yoke it has accepted for far too long. I yearn for a stronger Commission fully assuming its responsibility for governing and administering the Community. I yearn for a Parliament vested with legislative, financial and political powers, though not of a Parliament itself seeking to govern. I urge you to give the matter careful thought, my dear colleagues. It must be our unswerving objective to put and end to the situation in which the Commission is hamstrung in the implementation of the budget by ostensibly advisory intergovernmental committees that have the right to take from the Commission and give to the Council the power to implement a regulation. After all, by this transfer to Chapter 100 are we not in fact endeavouring to supplant the Commission in the implementation of the budget? This yoke we should be imposing on the Commission, in addition to the one already a

pplied by the Council, would have disastrous implications for its ability to govern, indeed it would lead to paralysis.

In the same Title 5, our committee invites you to transfer to Chapter 100 half of the 1600m ECU entered under Chapter 54 for special measures in favour of the United Kingdom. The reason underlying this proposal is quite different from the previous one and I fully endorse it. These funds were allocated to the United Kingdom by way of an extraordinary contribution by the Community intended to mitigate the budgetary injustice inflicted on it. But this was not to be a lump sum handed over to the British Government for it to do with it as it pleased. The appropriations were to be used for regional development projects designed to promote economic convergence. However, the British Government was not required to follow the procedures applied in the case of ordinary payments from the Regional Fund, procedures that ensure the correct use of such payments. Our committee therefore asks you to transfer half of these appropriations to Chapter 100 on the clear understanding that this sum will be released when the Commissi

on and the United Kingdom have furnished proof that the money is actually financing special programmes.

I now pass on to Title 6, which covers social, cultural and environment policies. The Committee on Budgets proposed here appropriations exceeding the preliminary draft by nearly 83m ECU in payments and nearly l99m EC in commitments. These sums are certainly not what we need to establish that European social and cultural area people talk about, but they represent all that can be done within the limits of this budget. The same remark applies also to Title 7, which covers structural policies in the energy, industry, technology, research, safety, innovation and transport sectors. These are truly the poor relations of Community policy, despite the fact that they should receive pride of place in the budget, since it is on them that the success of all the other policies depends. Yet up to now they have been condemned, like Cinderella, to a wretched and obscure existence. Pending the arrival of the prince who will recognize their true worth and elevate them to their proper rank, our committee asks you to give just a

little more than was provided for in the preliminary draft.

In Title 9 - cooperation - the Committee on Budgets invites you to approve the amendments tabled by the Committee on Development and Cooperation, which exceed only slightly the appropriations entered in the preliminary draft. The increases are 74m ECU in commitments and 97m ECU in payments, giving totals of 1 388m ECU in commitments and 1 237m ECU in payments. It may be wondered whether, by voting these appropriations. Parliament will have obtained that which it called for when it adopted the Ferrero resolution by an overwhelming majority and approved the Pannella resolution by an absolute majority.

Taking his cue from the standpoint adopted by Parliament, Mr Pannella and others tabled amendments translating its expressed wishes into additional appropriations totalling around 600m ECU earmarked for the campaign against hunger, the entry of which in the budget would provide the Commission with the legal basis it needs to act. The Committee on Budgets, however, invites you to vote against these amendments and, as rapporteur, I convey that recommendation to you. The Committee's attitude is dictated by its concern for budgetary austerity, a concern that deterred it from allowing the appropriation levels of the preliminary draft to be overrun by an excessive margin.

Speaking for myself, I have to say that never was austerity more inappropriate or ill-timed. I recalled just now the resolutions adopted by this very House, not Speaking for myself, I have to say that never was in the dim and distant past but only recently. Do I have to remind you of the Cancun conference, of the cries of despair from so many countries, of the Pope's exhortations, of the hunger strike by one of our colleagues? For my part, having asked you on behalf of my committee to vote against the Pannella amendments, I shall vote in favour of them.

But let me resume my role of rapporteur. There is in Title 9 another politically important point to which I should like to draw your attention. Under Chapter 96, in connection with the financial protocols with Turkey, our committee proposes that remarks be entered freezing all appropriations for and to that country not already committed by 31 October, until respect for human rights has been restored in Turkey.

The Community adopted the same attitude to the Greek colonels. We think it essential to follow this policy, given that Turkey, too, intends to join the Community. And I believe that our Greek colleagues can confirm that our policy not only encouraged resistance to the colonels but also helped to weaken their regime. I am sure that this House, with its sensitivity towards all matters relating to human rights, will adopt these amendments.

We now come to a more prosaic problem. After scrutinizing the Commission's administrative appropriations, the Committee on Budgets come to the con-clusion that the Council's cuts were excessive. However, after looking closely at the Commission's proposals it decided to recommend that you accept only two-thirds of them.

The only point where we have gone along fully with the Commission in regard to staff concerns the posts set aside for new Greek officials. The Commission had proposed a number equivalent - due allowance being made for population differences - to that initially decided upon for the British, Irish and Danish officials at the time of the first enlargement. The cut-back introduced by the Council amounted in our view to unfair and unacceptable discrimination against the new Member State. We therefore ask you to reject it by adopting our committee's amendments.

There, Mr President, you have the principal characteristics of the draft budget which the Committee on Budgets asks you to adopt at the first reading by Parliament. The votes cast on Thursday will show the extent to which this House agrees or disagrees with its views. It is customary for Parliament to conclude this first reading by adopting a resolution which, after all the amendments and modifications are done with, provides an overall view of the budget and a political assessment.

Let me explain very briefly the situation as regards this motion for a resolution. By adopting it, you will pass a very severe judgment on the draft budget, you will point to the efforts Parliament has made to improve it, but also to the tight margins within which it has had to operate, as a result of which the budget remains completely inadequate and an instrument of stagnation.

In fact, the stumbling blocks for Parliament were, firstly, the 1 % ceiling on VAT and, secondly, the absence of a blueprint for the reform of the budget and of Community policies.

By adopting the resolution, you will stress the overriding responsibility of the Council, which must demonstrate genuine political will and make a concerted effort to enable Parliament to adopt a budget already mapping out the future lines of the Community's budgetary and policy reforms.

By adopting the resolution, you will make it plain that, whatever the responsibility borne by the Council, it cannot act if the Commission renounces its power of initiative and fails to put forward proposals for decisions. You will remind the Commission that it has so far failed to respond to Parliament's clear and repeated request that it place the budget procedure in the context of the implementation of the mandate of 30 May.

Finally, you will tell the Commission that Parliament expects it to make up for lost time and opportunities by submitting to you, at the end of the forthecoming debate on the implementation of the mandate, a precise and early timetable for the proposed decisions necessary for the restructuring of the budget in accord-ance with Parliament's guidelines.

Before concluding, Mr President, may I add a few words in a personal capacity. There is in this resolution, which on behalf of the Committee on Budgets I ask you to adopt, not one word, not one idea that I do not endorse. But I feel obliged to point to the absence of political will, a failure to act on the part of Parliament. And that makes me unhappy, as it does, I am sure, many of you here in this Chamber.

In my opinion, this motion for a resolution marks an act of grave political resignation by Parliament. The resolution expresses no more than mixed feelings and wishes. Parliament 'notes', Parliament 'regrets', Parliament 'expects', that is all.

When you have adopted it, the Council, the Commission and the governments will breathe a sigh of relief, remarking that the taming of Parliament has begun. Sallust quotes Jugurtha as saying 'Senatores boni viri, senatus mala bestia', which is to say that it was possible to sway many of the senators, but that no one could defy a decision by the Roman Senate to pursue its policies. It would be sad indeed if, one day, another Sallust, speaking in this Assembly, were obliged to observe 'Senatores europei mala bestiae, senatus bonus vir', in other words, individually you are proud to shoulder your responsibilities and acknowledge the need to extend Parliament's role in the Community's interest, but Parliament as a body is prepared to yield to outside pressures because it has a weak and incoherent policy and because it has little confidence in itself.

If Parliament wants to become - and it should become - a rallying point for Europeans, then it must demonstrate its intention to have its will respected. It can do that in only three ways.

The first is rejection of the budget. It has used that instrument and is now aware of its limitations. The second is an undertaking to set up a new committee on a constitution-treaty for European Union and to engage in a complex political campaign to have it ratified directly by the appropriate democratic bodies in the Member States. in Parliament has decided on this course, but it can be expected to bear fruit only in the medium term, in two or three years' time. Lastly, there is the instrument of censure, which ought to be employed only if it is given its full political significance. It would be wrong to censure the existing Commission, for its successor would be more or less the same. What it needed is for the male bestia'to serve a solemn warning on the governments that will be renewing the Commission, a warning that will make them realize that here sits an Assembly, representing the people of Europe, which will no longer tolerate, under the existing Treaties, present institutional and inter-institutiona

l practices. As a first step towards setting things to rights, it will no longer countenance the present Commission's conception of its own role as that of a Council secretariat, which nervously awaits the Council's assent before getting down to work.

Censure should be used to make the new Commission realize that, although the governments may appoint it, Parliament is the watch-dog and Parliament may oblige it to resign. It must therefore pay the greatest heed to Parliament' wishes.

Reflecting for months now on the deplorable course followed by this year's budgetary procedure, on the fact that in two weeks' time we shall be embarking on the debate on the implementation of the mandate of 30 May - when we shall be confronted by the same attitudes on the part of the Council, which regards the Commission as its secretariat, and on the part of the Commission, which acquiesces in that role - I thought that our resolution should tell the Commission and the governments in clear and unequivocal terms that the sword of Damocles would henceforth be suspended over the head of that Commission and would descend upon it if it did not change its method of work.

The Committee on Budgets, reacting like a faithful retainer, deleted the one paragraph which gave expression not only to sentiments, but also to a willingness to act. As rapporteur, I am required to ask you to adopt the motion for a resolution before you as it stands. The concept I have of my responsibility as a politician - a responsibility I cannot shirk - obliges me to abstain, for I certainly cannot vote against the contents of the motion, but I cannot forgive it either for failing to say what it ought to have said.

(4 November 1981)

Madam President, one of the reasons which led me yesterday to use a language other than my own, French, as a vehicle was my conviction that in so doing my speech would be more readily accessible to my fellow Members who certainly know French better than Italian. However, I had not foreseen one problem which is that in fact I had a vehicle but no horses to draw it. Leaving aside imagery, I wanted my speech to be printed in the rainbow edition, so that those Members who might have had the strange longing to know what the rapporteur of the Committee on Budgets had had to say, could have read the text of his speech the very next day. Somewhat strangely however on this occasion - I do not know why - the rainbow edition was unavailable for whatever language. I think that in future this sort of inconvenience should be avoided.

Madam President, I have no intention of making another political speech nor a speech on financial policy. I should simply like to express myself on a number of points which I feel to be important before this debate is closed. Firstly, therefore, I should like to address the Commission, then the Council and lastly those Members who have tabled, either on their own behalf or on behalf of Committees, amendments.

I should like to point out to the Commission that with respect to the budget debate we are basically in a strange situation. In all our national Parliaments, the budget is - as it should be - drawn up by the Government, which then defends its budget before a lower House. If the House in question suggests amendments, the Government then goes to the upper House and says 'the lower House has made the following changes, I accept some of them and not others, and on this subject I should like you to help me to rectify the situation, because I expect a result of the following type...' this is how a parliament works.

So let us not hear Parliament being rebuked any more for having to cover a whole host of topics. You have left the debating body, Parliament, in the lurch and you, the governing body, have not given it the guidelines it needs even if it has the right to reject them. The Commission ought in fact to consider itself at all times responsible for the budget, which, as long as the budget procedure has not been completed - this is in the letter of the Treaties - is still the budget which the Commission is presenting and which it will be its job to implement when the procedure it finished even though we are called upon to examine the text of the budget as it appears after a first reading by the Council.

The Commission, in the Community system, ought to have pointed out to us from the beginning what amendments would be less acceptable to the Council and to have given us the appropriate guidelines. If this had been the case, perhaps then there would have been a more logical thread running through this whole debate. Without such pointers, it was Parliament which had to take on the responsability of more or less returning to the wording of the Commission's draft budget and then it was Parliament's Committee on Budgets task to guide Parliament's deliberations in that direction. I hope that in future this situation will not recur either.

Mr Tugendhat, I should like to make a second remark to the Commission and I should like to ask you to pass it on to President Thorn, who is not present during this debate. President Thorn, after having heard of our critical reactions, came to this House in order to explain that the Commission had entirely fulfilled the terms of the mandate conferred upon it and to state that during 1982 it would submit the necessary proposals. I should just like to read out the exact wording of his commitment 'In 1982, the Community is committed to solving the problems by making structural changes'. I should like to remind you that the mandate conferred on the Commission ought to have been completed by June 1981, this being the deadline by which the Commission ought at least to have submitted a package of draft decisions, which could be debated during the following months so that during 1982 the Community could have solved the problems.

The Commissions has however at this time only indicated that a start should be made on this draft. I truly hope that the Commission and its President will succeed in carrying out all this work within the year. I should like to remind Mr Thorn, who was a Member of the Council for so many years, that this institution in 1972 solemnly declared that by 1980 the Community would have become a political and economic and monetary union. We are now almost in 1982. President Thom should take care lest he behave in the same way now that he is a Member of the Commission.

I should now like to make some remarks to the Council. I am sorry to have to charge Mr Pear with taking my message himself to the President of the Council. In this case, the young representative of the Council is playing the part of 'whipping boy' in the sense that he communicates important matters to the Minister, whilst as messenger he gets the whipping here!

However, it is his youth which confers this role on him. I should like him to pass on to the Council the concern and apprehension expressed by Parliament. I hope that he will carry our message to the Cuncil, a message which is not simply made up of a pile of 600 amendments, but which is that even within the scope of present potential and even if applying the 'moderate strategy' which the Committee on Budgets suggests, the Community should use all the potential it now possesses in order to make the overall situation progress in the least harmful way, even if this is not necessarily the one which Parliament wishes to pursue.

We should like the Council not to indulge in horse trading, that is when we say 50, the Community then decides on 100, and then a cut is made and we concede 60 or 70, but we should like the Council to approach matters with a serious political attitude when taking its decisions in the second reading. Particularly for the budget, the Council must give serious consideration to these remarks and particularly to the fact that there are two landmines here which the slightest wrong step could set off.

The first landmine is that represented by the proposal made by the Committee on Budgets - which I feel Parliament will most probably adopt - for the abolition of a third of increased compensatory amounts and to do so for technical reasons so that all the Members may know precisely what is going on. In fact, the Council stated its intention of entering these compensatory amounts under Chapter 100, without knowing exactly why and how the Commission had arrived at the figure given. For its part, Parliament stated that it also wished to know in good time how the figure had been reached. We trust that the Commission will be wise enough to act quickly within the concertation procedure before our next part-session and to give us clear details of what are its reasons, its calculations, and the terms and conditions relating to these compensatory amounts. This ' is the only way in which we can avoid bouts of impatience and arrive at a carefully thought out solution.

The vast majority of Parliament is against compensatory amounts as is clearly in one motion for a resolution. We know however that on the basis of the regulation now in force compensatory amounts are a necessity. The regulations were enacted at a time of monetary stability, so that now that this stability has been blown apart it is obvious that if we wish to maintain the single price system we must make up for shortfalls with compensatory amounts. However, we must then ascertain whether compensatory amounts are a permanent subsidy or whether they are merely a provisional measure intended to fall into abeyance in time. It may well be that new compensatory amounts will have to be instituted. However, it will be necessary to link each compensatory amount created to a type of schedule, that is to set a timescale for its being abolished.

We should like all these remarks to be rapidly outlined to the Council by the Commission and for them to be discussed at a coordination meeting so that at the December part-session we shall be able to learn what responsibilities we have to assume when voting.

The other potential landmine is the problem of compulsory expenditure, just referred to by Mr Tugendhat. It is not the compulsory expenditure in itself which interests us. What is important are its consequences. Stating that a given item of expenditure is compulsory means that Parliament has a right to the last word in the matter, and means that we ought to know what is the maximum rate of increase and it means that we have to have a great deal of substantial resources.

It would be better if this distinction did not exist, it would be better if Parliament had its own legislative powers. However, this is not a question which will be solved in the coming months. In the coming monts and weeks, before voting on the budget, we have to know very precisely how we will be voting. I hope that you will follow the pointers which Parliament will be giving you when voting on certain appropriations, which we have amended, or others which we have modified, according to whether Parliament itself felt that they should be compulsory itmes of expenditure or not.

This time Parliament will not accept the Council's list just in order to keep the peace. This time, as the President of Parliament, Mrs Veil, has solemnly stated in writing, if there is no agreement we shall consider as compulsory all expenditure accepted as such by all three Institutions. It should be borne in mind that the shortest list is Parliament's. We shall therefore take that one as our guide not because we feel that we are right but because we feel that there will certainly be agreement on the headings included in our list both by the Commission and the Council since these headings are included in the list of those two institutions.

We hope that agreement on this subject will quickly be reached, but if, as may happen, a problem occurs because of the legal implications this decision has, which means that more time is required, we shall invite Parliament to accept an interim solution, which does not compromise the position of any of the three Institutions, by simply stating that for this year we shall adopt such and such a solution and reserve our right to choose another solution in the final analysis.

My final comment is aimed at those Members who have tabled draft amendments. Basing myself on the criteria applied by the Committee on Budgets, tomorrow when voting is carried out I shall restrict myself to stating when the committee is in favour and when it is against. We did not want to encroach upon the competence of the individual committees, but we intended to achieve a better balance within the limits laid down by Parliament by basically limiting ourselves to the proposals put forward by the Commission and by also taking account of the opinions of these specific committees which have looked into this particular questions.

Where agricultural policy is concerned, we expressed some reservations with reference to certain amendments, since we are convinced that all possible pressure in this sector ought to be brought to bear in order to bring about a change in policy. It has been somewhat simpler to achieve this aim this year because of the favourable economic circumstances given the fact that the Committee on Budgets asked for a number of reductions which have since been included in the second supplementary and amending budget.

However, we ought not to delude ourselves, there has been no real fundamental change. With that hypocritical attitude which characterizes the end of this century, we have done what from time to time the mechants of London used to do, that is to raise a toast for a bloody war and a bad harvest. Which would make prices rise and would however be to their advantage. Thanks to the bad harvest we have had, we have this time a little less expenditure to make. Let no one try to take the credit for this!

I have no other specific remarks to make, the bulk of what I had to say I inflicted on you yesterday!