Madam President, I am in the unique position of having been the general rapporteur for two years, for the 1994 and 1995 budgets. That is an extremely privileged position to have in any one year and to have it twice is quite exceptional and I realise how fortunate I am. However, it is probably also the most demanding job within Parliament. There is an old saying: "You can please some of the people some of the time". But I feel that when you are general rapporteur you please no one any of the time in trying to bring all the different aspects together to form a budget. Last night at midnight we finally finished our Committee on Budgets' meeting and I hope that when we vote on the first reading on Thursday, we will have very few, if any, problems.
This 1995 budget is rather extraordinary. The 1994 budget was quite difficult for a variety of reasons, not least of which was that we did not know whether we had an inter-institutional agreement or not; we did finally get one. I have to say that this 1995 budget makes the 1994 budget seem easy.
First, we have had a PDB from the Commission which was actually set above 1.2% of GDP and I remain convinced that there were reductions even then by the Commission in the hope that Parliament would rectify those figures. Then we had a draft budget which was set below 1.2% and we suddenly found ourselves ECU 600m below our expectations with regard to what Parliament wanted. We had no legal base for a budget of anything above 1.2% and yet we had expected an increase of 1.21% since the Edinburgh Summit 22 months ago.
The Commission also gave us a letter of amendment to consider, which will not now be considered. On top of that we had the draft supplementary and amending budget No 2 for 1994. That had a knock-on effect on the 1995 budget in that it means we are getting rid of some of the burden of the past, helping to clear our balances. We have also put some money on the line this year for the Portuguese textile industry and of course we have the ECU 20m to start work on the hospital at Mostar. The 1995 budget did and still does create great uncertainty about enlargement and what the revision of the financial perspective will be. Amidst all this, we have the fiasco of the Italian milk quotas.
I hope that paints a picture of how difficult this budget has been. Yet, in spite of this, we are in a position to vote our first reading on Thursday. One of the main reasons for that is the fact that in Parliament we have a Committee on Budgets' secretariat that is second to none. If I say I have worked long hours, that fades into insignificance compared to the work the secretariat has put in. It has not only worked very long hours in the day, it has worked into the night, into the early hours of the morning and at weekends. For the past three weekends at least, it has been working on this budget. I want to go on record publicly, on behalf of Parliament, and thank the secretariat for the work it has done.
(Applause)
The 1995 budget aims to do several things. It aims to meet the commitment we gave in the inter-institutional agreement and, at the same time, it takes account of the current economic situation in what we hope will be our enlarged Community and it also takes cognizance of the new obligations under the Treaties. We welcome the decision of the Council last Friday to agree the 1.21%. Whilst we agree it, there is still the logistical problem of getting all twelve Member States to agree it some time next year. We would want it agreed before the end of this year. But we recognize that it cannot be agreed until some time in the New Year. Until that happens, until the Member States have ratified individually, we have had to put ECU 600m in a frozen reserve, which will be unfrozen by a supplementary and amending budget. I will steal one of Mr Colom i Naval's lines and say that we will probably call it the microwave supplementary and amending budget when we unfreeze the ECU 600m.
I must say at this point that within that ECU 600m there are funds from the structural funds and money from the fusion research programme. The resolution that we will vote upon makes it quite clear that this is not in any way an attack on the structural funds or on the research programme. Also at this first reading, certain appropriations will be voted with an asterisk, subject to the adjustment of the financial perspective but also highlighting those things that we consider to be Parliament's priorities.
As regards agriculture, we in the Committee on Budgets, and Parliament itself, should be extremely pleased that for the first time ever the Council has taken on board our recommendations in relation to certain lines in the agricultural sector. We have had an ad hoc procedure and we have put a lot of work into trying to convince the Council that not everything it says on agriculture is always quite right. We too have a case now and then and on this occasion they have accepted our case. They have taken a handful of lines on board.
However, we still have a problem with about 150 other lines. The resolution we will vote upon says certain things about classification and our position on this is quite clear: the type of expenditure within Category 1 can only be defined in relation to the form of the legal instrument that is the basis for the action. Therefore the compulsory character of expenditure is not derived from the item itself but from the implicit character of the legislation. If that sounds double Dutch to a lot of people - and I apologize to the Dutch - it makes sense to a lot of us in the Committee on Budgets.
I also have to remind the Council that it has never replied to our invitations of 7 April, 7 July and 25 July to attempt to justify its decision line by line on the basis of the regulations in force. We want to actually make the Council's task easier. We want to make sure that we do not have to go to Court, that we do not have to fight our battles outside this chamber.
We in this Parliament have a constructive attitude on matters of classification. As in the past I would say to the Council and Commission that we are always willing to avoid any formal contestation once an agreement exists on the amounts to be entered in the budget. Once again I say to the Council that we are open to dialogue on the nature of each line.
On the other categories, Mr President, I know that the various rapporteurs will have their own things to say. But I just want to briefly go over each one. On Category 2, which are the structural funds, I have already said that there is no attack on the structural funds. However, we are concerned that in the past there has been a problem with expenditure, especially of the Social Fund. The remarks in the text about human resources are very apt because we want guarantees that every effort will be made in support of human resources compared with what has happened in the past. We want to make sure that the monies in the Social Fund actually spent on the people who need it most within the Community, especially the unemployed. It is no use, at the end of a financial year, finding out that we are ECU 700m under expenditure. We really need to utilize the resources that we make available.
On internal policy I have to say that the German President has a lot to thank Parliament for. Because when the German Presidency took office way back in July they issued a statement of their priorities. Their priorities covered many things which were in Category 3, especially in training and in education. I think that we deserve a thanks from the Presidency for actually saving it the embarrassment it would have had if we had not reinstated the amounts of money on the lines that we have done. We have actually made sure that the priorities of the Presidency will be carried out. I hope at the end of the day when it comes to education and training that its priorities are our priorities.
On external policies we had a great debate at some length - and quite a heated one at one point - within the Committee on Budgets as to what we should do with the use of a reserve, especially when it came to the PHARE and TACIS Programmes.
For the 1994 budget we used the weapon of a reserve, I thought, quite effectively. In fairness to Commissioner Brittan, he actually respected the criteria which Parliament put to him for the release of that reserve. This time the debate centred on whether we should put 25% of the PHARE appropriations in reserve. At our meeting last night we decided we would not do that, and we will not do it because of the assurances that we have once again received from the Commission regarding the PHARE programme and, indeed, the TACIS programme.
Parliament is exerting its pressure, is exerting its influence, is exerting its democratic control on areas like PHARE and TACIS because of the use of the budget. We should not underestimate what we can do. If we are to use these appropriations prudently, we need a good dialogue between the Commission and ourselves. It is our job as well as the Commission's to monitor these appropriations. The Commission can rest assured that we will be doing that throughout 1995 and the following years.
Still on the subject of the external policies, I need to make a comment about South Africa, the fact that we are increasing the funds to South Africa by 25%. The Community has a very proud record of helping the black people of South Africa. What we are now doing is helping to get the new government in South Africa established, because South Africa is the key to the whole of southern Africa. If we can make South Africa strong and a viable economy, the rest of that region will benefit. On the assumption that we vote through this amendment on Thursday, this Parliament will have a lot to be proud of.
On Category V, administration expenditure, we believe in strengthening the human resources of the Commission. We consider that to be a priority. We have earmarked certain sectors for particular attention, especially anti-dumping and the measures to implement the conclusions on the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment. It is also worth pointing out where the White Paper is concerned that the information society will play a key part in developing the future. It is for the Commission to decide internally how much will be allocated to certain Commissioners. But Parliament should put at least one marker down to show that the information society will be one of the areas we hope will be given some priority.
Within Category V we approve many amendments relating to a variety of organizations that exist to develop the European idea. But the one thing I feel quite concerned about is that, to use Mr Kellett-Bowman's phrase, it becomes something of a honey-pot. It is an area where the different groups and different individuals want to make their mark for their own organizations. I would hope that next year we can take a very close look at the organizations not only within Category V but also within Categories III and IV, and come forward with criteria on how we should be helping these organizations in the future, rather than doing it on a willy nilly, add-up basis, giving monies away because we need to make deals here, there and everywhere, that we will do it in a far more sensible way in the future. That is being called for here, and I hope that we can take that on board and act upon it.
This, of course, is only the first reading. A lot of work still has to be done. I hope we will get through this first reading unscathed. I am confident that in December the President will be able to sign a budget which we will all be satisfied with and, indeed, proud of.
(Applause)
