Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 1 April 1998 - Strasbourg

13. 1999 budget procedure – Adjustment of the financial perspective

  President . – The next item is the joint debate on the following three reports:

‐ A4‐0103/98 by Mrs Dührkop Dührkop, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the guidelines for the 1999 budget procedure – Section III: Commission;

‐ A4‐0099/98 by Mr Viola, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the guidelines for the 1999 budget procedure

Section I – European Parliament – Annex: Ombudsman
Section II – Council
Section IV – Court of Justice
Section V – Court of Auditors
Section VI – Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions

‐ A4‐0124/98 by Mrs Dührkop Dührkop, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision on the adjustment of the financial perspective to take account of the conditions of implementation (submitted by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 29 October 1993) (SEC(98)0307 – C40192/98)

  Dührkop Dührkop (PSE). rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, since we are having a debate on three reports together, and I am the rapporteur for two of them, we will look firstly at the motion for a resolution which, at first glance, is more technical; that is, the report on the adjustment of the financial perspective, after the technical adjustment, to take account of the conditions of implementation. I will then go on to look at the guidelines for the 1999 budget procedure in – if you do not mind – a lighter tone to make these late hours somewhat more agreeable.

The process of adjusting the financial perspective to take account of the conditions of implementation refers to the transfer of appropriations for commitments that were not implemented in the previous year from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund to the new budget year and to the appropriations for payments. This would guarantee, when necessary, as stated in the Interinstitutional Agreement, an orderly progression in relation to the appropriations for commitments.

This year, we must take account of the fact that the adjustment is different from that of previous years, since 1999 is the last year of both the financial perspective and the Structural Fund programming period. And this has led to the Commission transferring all the unused appropriations from 1997 to 1999.

Taking all this into consideration, and looking at the conditions for implementation in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, the Commission proposes transferring to the 1999 budget ECU 1 433 million which were unused for the Structural Funds in 1997, and ECU 101 million of appropriations for commitments unused for the Cohesion Fund in the same year; in other words, a total of ECU 1 534 million.

Taking into account previous adjustment decisions, we find ourselves with an increase in the Category 2 ceiling of approximately 18 % in relation to the 1998 budget.

Until now the Commission proposal has strictly adhered to paragraph 10 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. Nevertheless, this is not the case as regards the proposal on adjusting the appropriations for payments. In this respect, the Commission adopts a position contrary to the strict application of the financial perspective provided for in paragraph 10 of the Agreement, since it proposes no increase in the ceiling for appropriations for payments, on the grounds that it will be perfectly possible to face up to requirements.

Although I know fully well that an adjustment in the appropriations for payments is not limited to Category 2, I believe that the ceiling for appropriations for payments is underestimated and that the increase in Category 2 for 1999 will worsen to an even greater degree the proportion between the appropriations for commitments and the appropriations for payments.

In its arguments concerning the appropriations for payments, the Commission constantly makes reference to the Interinstitutional Agreement. At one point, it even states that additional payments might have been made to the value of ECU 1 000 million above the appropriations for payments provided for in the budget for 1997.

It is at the least surprising that the Commission proposes not to increase the ceiling for the appropriations for payments.

I believe that the Commission is combining two procedures: on the one hand, the financial perspective, which is a framework in itself; and on the other hand, the 1999 budget, which sets out the estimated actual requirements.

I would insist that we keep these two procedures separate and consequently call for the overall ceiling for the appropriations for payments to be raised by ECU 300 million. It remains to be seen whether the Council will accept this. If it does not, there will be a new tripartite dialogue before the presentation of the draft budget.

Having said this, I will move on to a more light‐hearted consideration of the guidelines for the 1999 budget procedure. Since I have been a member of the Committee on Culture, I am taking this poetic licence.

I do not think I am being original when I say that politics is the art of the possible. The budget is, in fact, the practical concretion of the principles of every Community policy that we debate and approve in this House. Making policies always involves making decisions.

We will have to adhere to these guidelines which we are going to approve throughout the entire budget procedure which I hope – since we are now in spring – turns out to be a bed of roses, rather than a calvary, despite the fact that we are about to enter Holy Week.

We are therefore now going to approve certain guidelines rather than going into the financial aspects at the moment. Eventually, when the Council"s first reading has taken place, it will be time to earmark a total figure for each heading and line.

I have tried to make this report as brief as possible so that the political priorities can be clearly distinguished. I understand and am sorry about the fact that the views of certain committees are not reflected but I would thank them all for having made it possible to have clear and concise guidelines. If we had done otherwise we would now find ourselves with a telephone directory which would prevent us from separating the wheat from the chaff. As rapporteur, I have taken on board all the opinions of the committees except, of course, those which would contradict the resolution being approved.

The report aims to present the 1999 budget as a bridging budget between the financial perspective which is ending and that which we are discussing. Since that year marks the end of the current financial perspective and the beginning of the consideration of the new one, with the debate on Agenda 2000, this budget not only brings to a close an era, but also must be considered as a “bridging budget’ towards the future. The millennium is ending and we have the honour of witnessing a historic change in our continent. This will also be the first budget denominated in euros, our common currency, which will unite Europeans even further and which will promote economic growth. In the medium term, we will see the enlargement of the European Union to include countries which were always European.

In addition, the Union will have to continue with its objective of economic and social cohesion because it is necessary to have solidarity between the regions, so that economic development and the new technologies do not lead to an increase in the differences between the rich and the poor.

We want to draw up a budget with its own meaning for 1999; a budget for the people and one which can respond to their expectations of the European Union. This does not simply involve determining income and expenditure, but it must also be able to sound out the opinion of a political union in a changing world.

European citizens, through the Member States, have transferred authority to the Union, including part of their sovereignty, so that we can thus meet their needs more successfully.

In this respect, the report refers to Article F.3 of the Treaty which states that “the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies’.

Therefore, the Union"s budget should be distinct from, and complement the budgets of, the Member States. The EU budget and those of the Members States are not comparable since the tasks and perspectives of each one are different, as is their method of facing up to common challenges and problems affecting the citizens.

In order to fulfill its task, the Union must have an influence on those aspects where there is, let us say, a “European Value Added’ which justifies strengthened action on the part of the Union.

In addition, we must note that the European Parliament has acted and cooperated responsibly in recent financial years in order to ease the path towards convergence for the Member States. And it will continue to do so, although it will not lose sight of the budget"s political significance.

Parliament is in favour of rigour, in the sense of a more efficient and rational use of financial resources.

I do not want to wave the teacher"s stick, but I must in order to reprimand the Council and the Member States for not having done their work, since in order to fulfill the commitments made at Edinburgh concerning the package for Structural Funds, and at Cannes, for the PHARE programme, this 1999 budget must face increases estimated at around 18 % for Category 2 appropriations and 36 % for Category 4.

Moreover, we must condemn the scandalously inadequate implementation of the Structural Funds in certain Member States. This does not represent a saving for the European Union, but a fraud against the citizens, who are deprived of European intervention which would help relieve their problems.

Nevertheless, Parliament must be clear on the fact that, in the budget procedure, the Council is neither an enemy nor an adversary nor a rival. We should not mistake this for a war. The Parliament and the Council share piano and stool in playing a “duet’. We need loyalty in the interinstitutional dialogue through which the two branches of the budgetary authority come to agreement on the score.

Among the main tasks of the melody to be interpreted are the priorities established in paragraph 3 of the report: the creation of employment through investment in infrastructure and research and development; support for small and medium‐sized enterprises; and measures to combat youth unemployment.

We also want to develop the concept of the Europe of knowledge which encompasses education and training as well as research and development. There is no doubt that Europe"s greatest potential is in its people, in the human value of the Europeans raised in an age‐old society.

In the same way, the 1999 budget must pay careful attention to the environment, in accordance with the commitments made at the Kyoto Conference.

I will now conclude my speech, ladies and gentlemen. Music has always united our countries, overcoming all sorts of frontiers and barriers. I hope that the genius of our great composers enlightens us and that Parliament and the Council can emulate Arthur Rubinstein in the interpretation of this “suite’ which is now beginning.

  Viola (PPE), rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, I would like to begin my speech regarding the sections of the other institutions by firstly stating my satisfaction at the decision taken by the Presidency, which adopted the preliminary draft budget yesterday. This enables us to observe the timetable we set ourselves in committee, and observe the tighter deadlines we have this year, which could allow us to begin the budgetary conciliation procedure with the Council on 17 June, as planned.

I also hope that this year the budgetary conciliation with the Council will take place in the same spirit of reciprocal cooperation that meant that last year we avoided a second reading.

I will now look at the figures in heading 5, administrative expenditure. The forecasts indicate a 4 % increase, that is, ECU 182 million, compared with last year. This means for example that for the European Parliament, as 20 % is allocated to Parliament, a margin of ECU 36 million. For Parliament, but for the other institutions as well, this margin is obviously not a cost objective, but a cost ceiling. This is because we cannot ask for less rigour for ourselves than that imposed on all the Member States at this particular time.

One of the lines I have indicated, with the consent of the Committee on Budgets in these guidelines, concerns firstly changing the nomenclature; this is a requirement laid down by Article 19 of the Financial Regulation, which talks of harmonizing the nomenclature. This will necessarily lead to greater facility in reading the budget and a greater transparency in it.

Here too, I have to give credit to Parliament for conforming to the decision taken by the Committee on Budgets, which goes back to the previous year, in the budget adopted yesterday to which this new nomenclature we had hoped for is appended.

The other guideline relates to the increase in the staffing structure, which in principle should be based on the anticipated rigour that applies to all the institutions. Obviously, this cannot happen unless we do not have to provide for necessary and justified requirements which can arise in the various institutions, such as requirements connected with negotiating the enlargement.

We would like similar supporting documentation to revalue jobs, and I have asked all the institutions to provide information on the measures concerning the reorganization of labour and concerning mobility, on vacancies arising as a result of retirement, disablement or sickness, on recourse to auxiliary agents and even on recourse to interinstitutional competitions and the list of jobs that will be vacant in 1999.

I have also confirmed the decisions taken by the European Parliament on its property programme and on exercise of the purchase option, on the transfer with regard to the property of the Court of Justice, on dealing with the problems of asbestos to be eliminated from its properties and the fitting‐out of premises for the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.

In this connection, I wish to say that I consider it essential, before the conclusion of this budget procedure, to include a definitive solution for these two institutions, indicating specific times, costs and their final establishment. I appreciate the decision of the Presidency to avoid following up the onerous request to build a new hemicycle in the building in rue Belliard, that would have cost at least ECU 16 million. The Presidency has decided to make one of Parliament"s rooms available to the committees, following their transfer, to be used as a hemicycle.

The first reading will obviously deal with the results of the implementation of the previous budget. Finally, a further guideline for all the institutions is the preparation of a detailed report, supplemented by the timetable on the consequences of the introduction of the euro for each institution and the computer problems for the year 2000.

To conclude, Mr President, I hope that, in continuing their work, all the institutions will show a sense of responsibility according to the current experiences of the EU and the Member States, on the example of that unfortunately shown yesterday by the Presidency of this Parliament which limited the increase to 0.64 % compared with the previous year, well below the objective of a 2.5 % increase fixed by the Commission for administrative expenditure.

  Sonneveld (PPE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. – (NL) Madam President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the budget for 1999, I greatly appreciated the fact that the general rapporteur, Mrs Dührkop, had started to consult the different sectors, in particular the agricultural sector, at a very early stage. Both the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are determined to continue the procedure followed for the 1998 budget as far as agricultural expenditure is concerned. It is important that this procedure, which in the meantime has been christened the “Tillich‐Mulder’ procedure, is also adopted by the Commission and the Council in equally positive terms. The precise description of this procedure can be found in the working document of the Committee on Budgets, namely Working Document 12 of 2 February this year.

As far as the report at hand is concerned, I contributed to the more precise wording of paragraph 13 on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Three points are emphasized in this paragraph. The total figure set by the Commission for Category 1 in its draft budget, should not be taken as a ceiling. This figure may be based on possible estimates, but these have no normative character as such. The final figure in this budget category should continue to be adjusted for as long as possible on the basis of more current expenditure estimates, in other words, right up until the second reading. A possible amendment for the Council and the Commission will then be a rather binding guideline. Should cuts be necessary in the meantime, these should be made selectively for certain budget items, which must be looked at anew, and not across the board.

Finally, the problem of the reserve should be further clarified. In the area of agriculture, where more clear‐cut estimates will made in future, a reserve provided for by resources, is essential. The reserve system which will have to be drafted in general terms could be used to fall back on in part, but general uniformity would sell short the specific character of the agricultural budget. This clear method of approach guarantees a good basis for an effective agricultural budget policy, and gives Parliament a bigger involvement in the agricultural expenses than has been the case for many years, an experience which will be valued by the Commission and, hopefully, by the Council.

  Rübig (PPE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy. – (DE) Madam President, in the budget for 1999 we are not just preparing for a new millennium, but we are also laying the foundation stone for the greatest challenges to European integration for many years. Since the announcement from the Commission and the European Monetary Institute about monetary union, we now have fairly precise information about the timetable for a common currency as well as its prospects and the risks involved.

The continuation of the information campaign about the introduction of the euro remains an important matter, to prepare the European population fully for the conversion, because in this field we can look very positively into the future. On the other hand we are already setting course for the ambitious project of expansion to the east in the next millennium. There is much for us to do there, too. So we must strive to accelerate further the completion of the internal market, to remove existing obstacles from our path. We should therefore pay special attention to suitable measures such as the action plan for the internal market.

We must also strengthen the trust of the citizens in the problem‐solving skills of the European Union. This includes, above all, the ambitious driving forward of the employment initiative, on which we decided last year. I would like to point out once again the role of small and medium‐sized enterprises in creating jobs. We have already heard this week that the measures to support small and medium‐sized enterprises which have been provided are now almost too numerous to count. Yet the resources are apparently far from exhausted in many fields.

We therefore need a comprehensive, precise evaluation by the Commission, so that suitable measures can be carried out within the next budget plan, and so that the efficiency of support for small and medium‐sized enterprises can be effectively increased. One more thing must be clear to us in this context. The most effective support for companies is the kind which from the outset leaves the resources and effort in the companies. Therefore, in the budget procedure, we should conform exactly to the principles of SLIM legislation, that is of a SLIM initiative, on which we have already voted today in this House, or to general bench marking.

  Ferber (PPE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy has naturally considered in detail the guidelines for the 1999 budget. There are two particular subjects which we regard as particularly urgent. They are, first, the transition from the fourth to the fifth research framework programme, and second, in the field of energy policy, the conversion of the Kyoto decisions into a clear policy of the European Union.

First I would like to thank the rapporteur for including both subjects in the guidelines. We are conscious of this honour, because not every committee manages to have its subjects included in the guidelines. On the other hand, the rapporteur promised us that in a kind of new Dührkop Dührkop procedure all opinions of the committees would be included in the decision. Unfortunately that was rejected by the Committee on Budgets. We regret that very much, Mrs Müller, because we are already conscious of the problems regarding the financial resources of the fifth research framework programme, and because we also know that, in particular, the question of how we are to handle the year 1999 in terms of budget policy is not altogether easy to answer. It would have been very sensible if the Committee on Budgets had accepted the proposals of the Research Committee, so that, in particular, we can manage the transition next year in an orderly fashion. We hope that during the first reading more precise numbers will be available, including those from the Council, so that we can make progress in providing financial resources to the specific programmes.

Regarding energy policy, there is an urgent need to act at European level. I do not think that the statements in the guidelines do justice to this problem. We hope that at first reading, which we as a committee will follow very closely, we shall succeed in getting support for our concerns, even in the Committee on Budgets.

  Liikanen, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the 1999 budget exercise is getting under way in an atmosphere of serenity and interinstitutional cooperation. There are encouraging signs that it will live up to the great challenges of the Union: employment creation, Economic and Monetary Union and the preparation of enlargement.

In 1999 Economic and Monetary Union will enter into its third stage. The recent reports and the reactions have underlined the continuing determination of the Member States to improve the health of their public finances. This climate of budgetary rigour cannot be ignored at Community level either. The guidelines concerning the Community budget for 1999 show that all institutions are ready to assume their responsibilities in this respect. Bringing the increase of payment appropriations roughly in line with the growth of national budgets – as proposed by Barbara Dührkop Dührkop – indicates a very responsible approach by the European Parliament.

Within a rigorous setting, the 1999 budget must meet the obligations of the Union and focus on growth and employment creation.

With regard to agricultural expenditure, the Commission expects – for the time being – credit requirements at the level of the 1998 budget. Should these forecasts change significantly during the year, the Commission will follow the successful procedure last year and submit a late rectifying letter. I take note of this procedure – it is called the Tillich‐Mulder procedure in your report.

For the structural actions, 1999 marks the end of the current programming period. The tentative agreement at the budgetary trialogue yesterday to increase the ceiling of category 2 by EURO 1534 million in commitments and the overall ceiling for payments by EURO 300 million paves the way for correct conclusion of this programme.

For internal policies, the institutions should jointly underline the efforts to contribute to growth and employment creation: the fifth research framework programme – for which a satisfactory agreement must be found well before the end of the year – the reinforcement of the Trans‐European networks and the ‚employment and growth initiative’ are the principal priorities in this respect. The ‚employment and growth initiative’ is a joint success of the European Parliament and the Council. It is a three‐year programme and should therefore continue to be the focus for the 1999 and 2000 budgets.

On external action, the particular emphasis will be the transformation of PHARE into an effective pre‐accession instrument. The Commission will propose reinforcing PHARE by ECU 150 million in a supplementary and amending budget for 1998 to bring its multi‐annual envelope into line with the decisions of the Cannes summit. Naturally, this proposal will have to be accompanied by a detailed assessment of the scope for implementation.

On these elements there seems to be a convergence of views among the institutions. It is also encouraging that yesterday's budgetary trialogue agreed to relaunch discussions on the question of ‚legal bases’ at a technical level.

It is in this framework that the Commission will discuss and adopt the preliminary draft budget for 1999 at the end of this month. I have every hope that the reinforced interinstitutional cooperation which has permitted a successful 1998 budget will again bear fruit for the next year. This would then perfectly set the tone for the next interinstitutional agreement which we should discuss in the months to come.

  Wynn (PSE). – Madam President, if Mrs Dührkop Dührkop can wax lyrical at this late hour I am sure you will allow me a little bit of levity if I say first of all that Commissioner Liikanen has virtually stolen my speech. He said the things that I was going to say and when he began by saying that this is a budget which is surrounded by serenity, following Barbara Dührkop's analogy with playing a piano. I am reminded of Eric Morecambe, the great comedian from the UK who is now dead.

There was a sketch where Eric Morecambe is playing and is making a real honky‐tonk noise. It sounds absolutely awful and André Previn says, ’you are playing all the wrong notes, ’ and Eric says, ’I am playing the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.’ That has always seemed to be the way we have done the budget in the past, and Barbara's analogy with playing a piano is not too far out, because this year is different.

I said it when Helen Liddell first came to the Budgets meeting. We do not deal with the Commission like this – we even had a Scots interpreter in the English language booth doing it with a Scots accent for Helen Liddell. It seems that everything is going so well and that is good. I think it shows the partnership that is being developed and a maturity towards the budget from the three institutions involved.

On Mr Viola's report, I think we have to say that the fact that it is unamended and went through Committee unamended shows the consensus from all the groups as far as these guidelines are concerned – what we expect from the budgets of the other institutions. We congratulate Mr Viola on the work he has done and we hope that consistency will continue as we go through the year.

On the Dührkop report on the adjustment of the financial perspective, the trialogue which occurred earlier this week, as Commissioner Liikanen said, has been extremely fruitful, carried out in an atmosphere of cooperation where the three institutions want to get a settlement. It is not an adversarial situation where we are trying to score points off one another; instead we are actually trying to get a budget which we can all agree to and this adjustment of the financial perspective. One hopes that when Mrs Liddell goes to the Council she can come back and report to Parliament that the additional resources that have been provisionally agreed can be agreed in total. It would be a major achievement if we could see that.

On the main report, the political group which I represent as coordinator supports it throughout – to such an extent that we wanted it to be kept, like Mrs Dührkop's, as short as possible. As to the amendments which have been proposed, we agreed last week not to support any amendments, and I say this mainly for colleagues like Mr Brinkhorst. We see nothing wrong with his Amendment No 1, but we actually think it is better placed within the first reading. On this occasion we would not be inclined to support it. Having said that, several of my colleagues see no reason why we should not support it, and I remain to be persuaded that we should support it between now and voting time tomorrow; so do not give up hope yet, Mr Brinkhorst. If we do vote against, let me make it clear that it will not be because we disagree with the content of that report, but because we took a stand to keep this report as short as possible. We can apply that to many other amendments, but please try to understand that it is not for dogmatic reasons, it really is a matter of simplicity.

It is a budget, as Commissioner Liikanen said, of prudence: we use the terms ‚a citizens' budget’ and ‚a taxpayers' budget’ in the same sentence and I think that is what we are trying to achieve with these guidelines. When we look at the priorities, as far as our group is concerned the main priority is about job creation, about creation of employment; no matter how we do it, whether it be through infrastructure, whether it be through research and development, whether it be through support for small and medium enterprises. That is the thrust of our approach to this budget.

We also support the phrase ‚Europe of knowledge’ which Mrs Dührkop has introduced – one would expect her to give priority to education and training, having known her for many years; and we would want to see European funds spent in the area of education and training and research and development. The thrust of the report you can find in paragraph 8, and I think we can give our full support to what it says there. At the end of the day it is about getting that agreement, about making sure that the three institutions are working together. And who knows, at this rate we may end up with one reading of the budget. Oh that it were so!

  Fabra Vallés (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to state that I agree with the budgetary guidelines contained in Mrs Dührkop Dührkop"s report.

This agreement indicates that, apart from the discrepancies in terms of economic policies, there is a common concern among the groups of this House as regards European problems in fighting unemployment and strengthening the European dimension of the Community budget.

It is hoped that the 1999 budget procedure will maintain a similar procedural basis and form as that used in 1998, when the European Parliament was able to defend its own priorities before the Council, thereby achieving the extension of the ad hoc procedure including that of the late rectifying letter to the PDB, not to mention the almost unanimous commitment of this House to defend appropriations earmarked in the PDB for the Structural Funds in Category 2.

It is true that this year the process is even more complex since it marks both the end of the current financial perspective and the beginning of Agenda 2000 and the problem of using up the remaining appropriations for commitments. Our opinion is that the appropriations provided for in Edinburgh for 1999 should be strictly respected, and among the existing alternatives we should choose that which guarantees that every last ecu available will be fully committed for the Structural Funds for Category 2.

We will continue to show that the current financial perspective should be the basis for the next perspective, particularly as regards the percentage of own resources: taking 1.27 % as a base and not as a ceiling should be the financial expression of the European effort for enlargement.

  Giansily (UPE). – (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, there is a common link between this evening"s discussion on the guidelines for the 1999 budget exercise and yesterday"s debate on the procedure for discharge of the 1996 financial year which has of course not escaped you. The link is the importance recognized in the execution of the budget and the fight against fraud, whilst proposing to make the 1999 budget the “taxpayer"s’ and the “citizen"s’ budget.

Indeed, having arrived at a crucial and decisive stage in its development, with the creation of the euro and the commencement of accession negotiations, Europe needs to be explained to its citizens and to be understood by them more than ever before. Europe can only be credible and can only inspire confidence if the tax payers" money is managed soundly.

The rapporteur"s second concern is to make the 1999 budget the budget of the people and on this point also, I like the sound of what she is saying. The public must be convinced that Europe is made for them and it seems to me extremely important to strengthen social and economic cohesion. Without this understanding they will end up punishing us, there is no doubt about this.

More than a management budget or a simple “bridging’ budget, the 1999 budget could, above all, be a pivotal budget which will determine the conditions of the financial future of the European Union. With the new financial perspective, with a new interinstitutional agreement at the beginning of the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union and within the context of the Agenda 2000 negotiations, the 1999 budget will be seen as a budget for revival, whilst at the same time taking up the already well known priorities which must be continued: budgetary action for jobs – a commitment in the 1998 budget gained support from the European Council of Luxembourg in November 1997 – priority to jobs through investment in infrastructure and research and development, support to SMEs, measures to combat youth unemployment, and to provide education and training for a “Europe of knowledge’.

A pivotal budget, a revivalist budget, but a realistic budget as well, one which recognizes that the increase in appropriations for payment for 1999 must not surpass the average growth in Member States" budgets in relation to the 1998 budget, but within certain acceptable conditions such as respect for the Edinburgh objectives for Structural Funds.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Union for Europe Group and I support the rapporteur"s approach, and are convinced that the budget exercise will commence auspiciously well.

  Brinkhorst (ELDR). – Madam President, the significance of the debate on the budget at this stage is, as Commissioner Liikanen said, that it gives joint guidelines for the Commission in its forthcoming preliminary draft budget. From listening to the debate so far it seems that we are going to have a very easy ride. The Commissioner has pre‐empted matters by referring to a number of points in Mrs Dührkop's report. During the life of this Parliament we have seen significant progress. When Parliament itself give clear and concise guidelines it will have an impact on the Commission's preliminary draft budget.

I congratulate Mrs Dührkop for being very concise and having the courage to inject useful but limited guidelines on the number of sites. She has withstood the temptation of becoming a telephone directory, as she herself said. The ELDR largely share the priorities expressed in the House by many others.

Let me just concentrate on one point raised by Mr Wynn, who was so kind as to say that the Socialist Group, having not finalized its view, still thought that for reasons of principle it should not vote for particular amendments which our group would like to put forward. I would hope that Mr Wynn could reconsider this point. It concerns the Treaty of Amsterdam. That Treaty will enter into force by 1999. It will be useful for the Commission to understand the signals from Parliament that it is already taking the view that the Schengen information system and Eurodac, which are key elements in transforming the first pillar into an area of freedom, security and justice will actually be incorporated.

We hope, therefore, that you can go one step further so that we can give this guideline to the Commission to introduce it in the preliminary budget.

  Miranda (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, notwithstanding the serenity mentioned by Commissioner Liikanen, we are aware that the current budgetary process is particularly important and complex. It is the last of the present financial framework, and it also acts as a sort of bridge to the next framework, while some see it as the closing stage of a cycle. Mrs Barbara Dührkop, therefore, does not have an easy task. I sincerely hope that this is not the beginning of the calvary that she mentions in her statement.

With regard to the report, I would like to begin by saying that we agreed with much of what it contains. It goes without saying that we identify with the priorities of employment, education, vocational training, environment, more intensive control of programmes and development policy. We welcome the clear request that, regarding Structural Funds, Edinburgh should be respected, and we draw attention to the importance accorded to monitoring execution and to the efficient use of funds.

However, there are other points that we also consider to be important but on which we diverge. Firstly, we consider the pursuit of those priorities to be incompatible with the budgetary restraint that continues to be advocated. Such restraint is also, although not explicitly, a real priority of this as of previous budgets.

But, in our view, it is not possible to fulfill the ambitious priorities listed with the limited means that will consequently be available to the Union. Moreover, we do not agree with the proposal contained in paragraph 10 of the report, despite the positive amendment already introduced at the suggestion of the rapporteur whereby this budget will cease to be the sole foundation and become one of the foundations of future financial perspectives.

In this connection, we consider that the proposal of the Committee on Regional Policy, contained in the amendment relating to this point, is much more reasonable. Indeed, we do not understand how this budget can be even one of the foundations of future financial perspectives. As stated in the report, it may be a bridge, but not a foundation. The foundation for future financial perspectives can and should be confined to current financial perspectives. That is, moreover, consistent with what we earlier approved when we voted for the Colom i Naval report, specifically regarding the ceiling of 1.27 % or, more correctly, of 1.13 % of GNP for payments at the end of the period, as is proposed by the Commission.

Meanwhile, and still on the same point, we have serious reservations regarding the creation of a preallocated reserve. We are in no doubt that the aim is to contain spending, since the creation of the reserve is explicitly connected with reducing the “burden on taxpayers’. However, the text does not clearly define either the mechanism whereby this objective is to be achieved, or even its practical consequences. In all events, we fear that it will certainly have the effect of negating the concept of Community funds as we understand them today. These are the reasons why we will vote for the report provided the proposal of the Committee on Regional Policy is approved.

  Müller (V). – (DE) Madam President, I would first like to thank Mrs Dührkop and Mr Viola sincerely for their reports. I believe that they are balanced guidelines, and it seems particularly important to me that we should build a so‐called bridging budget, which begins to mark out our vision for expansion in the years 2000 to 2006.

I am particularly glad about the setting of priorities, and that the rapporteur has observed the canon of priorities so consistently, to give it special emphasis, and I am obviously in particular glad about the priority for the post‐Kyoto process with the new budget for 1999, which allows us to make a decisive contribution. At this point I would like to announce to the rapporteur some fireworks, good proposals from my party, fireworks which on this occasion do not produce any CO2.

I would like to make, on behalf of my party, proposals which aim at information campaigns to encourage the use of products whose manufacture uses little energy. I would like to promote restructuring in the research budget, modern energy‐saving technologies which lead to a real breakthrough. I would like the rapporteur to promote pilot projects in the budget, heating insulation for private houses, offices and energy‐intensive industries. And of course, particularly in view of the newcomers in the European Union, I would like to put through a realignment of the SAVE and ALTENER programmes.

Last but not least, a million solar panels, a programme for the acceptance of photo‐voltaics. I believe that if the rapporteur, as she has shown until now, is disposed to ‚putting butter on the fish’, and to allowing the priorities to be followed by deeds, a real contribution to the post‐Kyoto process can be made in the next budget. I hope so, and in this spirit I hope for continued good cooperation.

  Fabre‐Aubrespy (I‐EDN). – (FR) Madam President, budgetary discussions continue and I am extremely happy that this debate is taking place in Strasbourg and not in Brussels like last year. I hope I see in this a desire to respect the decisions of the Court of Justice rather than a simple hazard of the calendar.

However, the discussions are being undertaken in an almost grotesque fashion, to such an extent that one wonders if some people are not celebrating April Fools" Day in their own way. In fact, 24 hours ago, we were rejecting the 1996 discharge because the Court of Auditors could not guarantee the overall regularity of payments in the 1996 budget. Today, we note once more the continuing irresponsible desire to spend more. Whatever happens, Parliament has to spend everything and spend more. It refuses at all costs to relinquish credits, or cast doubt upon certain policies, as if it is in some way a question of honour.

The most flagrant example of this perversion concerns the Structural Funds. True to itself, the Committee on Budgets continues to state that the decisions taken in Edinburgh on this subject must be applied to the letter and that the budget approved constitutes an objective for expenditure. But decisions taken in the past should not prevent all political reflection in the present per se . I refuse to let myself be dragged into the scandalous situation whereby we are constrained to search desperately for a means, a way, a legal loophole which will enable us to spend the money of the Member States" taxpayers.

Furthermore, as is the case with every budget exercise, we will not be able to avoid the litany of demands coming from those who push things just that little bit too far. One of the main priorities mentioned by the rapporteur is that the budget must continue to be a budget for employment. It is more likely to be a budget for architecture. In 1998, Parliament devoted as much money to the acquisition of the ostentatious D3 building in Brussels as it did to the famous “jobs’ initiative.

Finally, the Treaty of Amsterdam has not yet been ratified by the Member States and yet we are already applying its financial measures – a good example of respect for democracy, and a further reason for the Group of Independents for a Europe of Nations not to vote for this report.

  Samland (PSE), chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Fabre‐Aubrespy, the new buildings in Brussels also created work, at least in Brussels. But I really wanted to say something about the 1999 budget: Commissioner, your speech was not bad, but the one which you made about the budget ratification was better, because you made it in French! You yourself classified it as more sexy.

As for the 1999 budget, I would like to make five points. First: the 1999 budget is a bridging budget, as Mrs Müller has already said, because no one can still be of the opinion that we can discuss the 1999 budget without bearing in mind that the new financial perspective for 2000 to 2006 is being dealt with simultaneously.

Second: this means that we must come to terms with the difficulties that the 1999 budget has produced. No one can explain away the fact that an 18 % rate of growth in the appropriations for commitments for Structural Funds is of a dimension which is beyond the discussions and the possibilities of a budget discussion. I would like to quote a sentence: ’This is not of this world.’ It is appropriate here if people believe, as someone once wrote in Edinburgh, that the matter can simply be prolonged.

Third: in the case of the foreign policy programmes, we have a spending situation which is equally haywire. If resources of ECU 2 300 000 000 were not committed and ECU 3 200 000 000 were not paid out within the PHARE programme alone, it must be clearly said that in 1999 it makes no sense to increase the PHARE programme by 36 %, only to put into the budget cashbox money which was deducted from other foreign policies by 10 % reductions. Projects in South Africa, South America and Asia, and all sorts of NGO programmes, are suffering as a result, just to present something which actually will not happen in the budget year. These are the problems which confront us when we discuss the 1999 budget.

We have, that is Mrs Dührkop Dührkop has found a formulation in paragraph 8 of her guidelines, in which, as never before in this House, Mr Fabre‐Aubrespy, she states in writing that Parliament is only prepared to join in creating a 1999 budget growth rate which is on the level of the budget growth rates of the Member States. We have never before committed ourselves to such a condition. But if that is what is wanted, the problems which I have just mentioned must be solved. And if we want to solve them, we shall have to find ways whereby the future financial perspective can be announced at the same time. That must be based on more flexibility, and on the principle that no Member State can be forced to effect expenditure that takes money from the Community budget, if it itself is not prepared to take this money.

In the informal three‐way discussion, and in the three‐way discussion on Tuesday, I said, “ The 1999 budget will only materialize – and I say this here very clearly, above all so that it is on record for the Council – if there is an interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions about the questions of the legal bases.’ Please, let no one hide behind the legal process which has been initiated before the European Court of Justice. We need a solution to this problem in principle. Parliament is ready for it, and I have the impression that the other two institutions are too. But prepare yourselves – I am not fooling around – there will be no 1999 budget if this problem is not solved.

  Tillich (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we started the 1998 budget procedure during or around the time of the Ajax Amsterdam football match. This evening there is also a football match, between Real Madrid and Borussia Dortmund. I shall come back to this point again at the end.

Mr Fabre‐Aubrespy mentioned the first of April. We would surely rather have seen the football match, but the seriousness of the situation, namely the 1999 budget discussion, keeps us fixed in the House at this hour.

For the first time, information policy is not firmly anchored in the guidelines. We have assumed that we shall have a viable concept between the Commission and the European Parliament of how information policy in 1998 is finally to be controlled. However, unfortunately this does not seem to be the case, and I would like to remind at least those who have been elected from this House as representatives to the Bureau or the Conference of Presidents to look again at the budget decisions of 1996, 1997 and 1998 in paragraphs 18 of the 1998 guidelines, 30, 31 and 32 of the 1998 first reading, and 11 of the 1998 second reading, and paragraphs 9 of the 1997 guidelines, 17, 48, 49 and 50 of the 1997 first reading, because precisely in view of the morning discussion today that is certainly not unimportant for the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents.

But now to the content of the guidelines before us. Ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Dührkop, you have in paragraph 2, I believe, a mistake which only originates in the German version, because again it refers to an employment budget. That might be a problem for our party, but I know that you mean a budget for more employment, and therefore I ask you to make an alteration, at least before the vote tomorrow.

In the fourth starred point of paragraph 8, again at least in the German version, there is such an unfortunate formulation that I do not understand it at all. In paragraph 9, I consider that your own formulation is excellent, and I believe that it hits the nail on the head. Therefore, our party will apply for a split vote, above all on the question of a vote on the critical mass and the policy of the Commission, because in our opinion this does not belong to it in principle. We consider that your formulation is better.

In paragraph 15, which concerns the employment initiative which was defined and voted on in the 1998 procedure, the second part is at least unclear, if not actually wrong. We have quite clearly declared ourselves for the three main aims of this employment initiative, and also voted for them. At midday today we finally voted on the Pronk report as the legal basis, and we also said that small and medium‐sized enterprises should be taken into account in the field of the third system together with others, but what it says there now is that they should be given priority. That is not what we voted for.

As far as the amendments before us are concerned, we agree entirely with the submitter of the first amendment, Mr Brinkhorst, at least as regards its aims, but we have not yet formed a final opinion.

To come back to the football match: today in Spain, in Madrid, the match was delayed by an hour because the goalposts fell down. Since Mrs Dührkop comes from near Barcelona, and such a thing never happens in Barcelona, I wish the rapporteur, and the other rapporteur Mr Viola, great success in remaining standing throughout the 1999 budget discussions.

  Tomlinson (PSE). – Madam President, I wish to begin by congratulating the two rapporteurs, Mrs Dührkop Dührkop and Mr Viola, on having produced guideline resolutions which are just that. They are guidelines and they have strenuously resisted what so often happens if people try to turn the guidelines into some sort of advance and premature first reading. What we have here is a very clear view of principle.

I merely want to refer to a couple of paragraphs in Mrs Dührkop Dührkop's excellent report and underline them, in particular recital D where she emphasizes that what we have to concentrate on in the budget procedure is the whole question of the collection of revenues so as to avoid wastage. We spend so much time dealing with expenditure that we have to prioritize the proper collection of own resources as a major, fundamental and integral part of the budget procedure.

The other point I would highly commend her for is the incorporation in paragraph 9 of her report of the response to the challenge laid down by Commissioner Liikanen some two years ago about the policies of critical mass. Today in the guidelines motion he has Parliament's response, and we hope that, having had Parliament's response, we get preliminary draft estimates that reflect that response in a way that we can see. If you read paragraph 9 carefully, Mrs Dührkop has there accepted the challenge that it means looking at those policies which should be continued and even reinforced, but also at those which should no longer be thus considered. So it has bitten the bullet, it is a serious response, and one which I commend.

For the rest of my time, I want to turn to Mr Viola's report which, again, is excellent. The points I would underline in his report are as follows: in paragraph 4 he makes the very important point about the European civil service. I hope when we are talking about the European civil service as we proceed into the detail of the budget, we will perhaps extend some of the thoughts set out there and talk about both appointment and promotion being exclusively actions which should take place on merit. This should be the only criterion for appointment and promotion within the European civil service. I note and welcome in paragraph 5 the view that no new post ought to be created in 1999, and I hope that, as we progress into the budgetary procedure, the caveat expressed there is one that can be dropped.

I commend very fully all the points that are laid out in clear chronological sequence in paragraph 8 of the report, where there are a whole series of matters on which this House, as part of the budgetary authority, needs further information.

I particularly turn to paragraph 9 – property policy. Today, as has already been recalled, is 1 April. I received, I suppose, what has been the most complicated April Fool's Day hoax in the form of what purports to be a report to the European Parliament from the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, a report that would have us believe that something like ECU 36 million is going to be spent on converting the Belliard I and II buildings to meet their purpose. I say to them: nice try on April Fool's Day but we look forward to receiving the genuine report on what should be made available for the conversion of those buildings.

Yet there are serious challenges before us in the buildings area, and I am sure that, in the approach that Mr Viola is taking, he will continue with the same level of serious scrutiny as we have had in the past.

The only area that I see seriously lacking in the Viola report – but I think we can take it for granted – is in relation to communications policy. We have lots of discussions coming up on communications policy. I just want to add one thought, and I say it with great respect to you, Madam President, as something you can take back to the Bureau. I am increasingly of the view that to understand what Parliament's Bureau actually does and decides you have to be a Kremlinologist to read their minutes and get any meaning out of them. So at this time when we are talking about communications policy, you can perhaps translate into the Bureau minutes the same degree of clarity, lucidity and transparency that this Parliament is trying to instil into the European Central Bank. It would be a great service to parliamentary democracy.

  Tappin (PSE). – Madam President, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Dührkop, on an excellent report on the guidelines. As you might expect as the Committee on Budgets' rapporteur for the satellite agencies, I would like to concentrate particularly on paragraph 18 in her report. This has appeared again this year in the guidelines.

The question is why should we have a paragraph on the satellite agencies again. Many Members of this House and members of the Committee on Budgets will think that with Parliament's acceptance of the Kellett‐Bowman report on matters relating to satellite agencies, the matter has been done and dusted. This is not so. Mr Liikanen has used the word ‚serenity’ but, as an Americanist, I would always say that ‚eternal vigilance’ is the key. With the satellite agencies eternal vigilance is certainly the key as far as we are concerned.

While we want to pursue our paragraph in the guidelines, there is the question of the annuality of the budget procedure. Over the last three years, great strides have been made in presenting the budget lines for the satellite agencies. We have insisted on a number of guiding principles which I am glad the agencies have taken up. And these have been pursued with the help of Mr Liikanen and his colleagues in the Commission.

What are these guidelines? Firstly, there are prior information and prior spending patterns. We are looking at the way in which resources have been used for previous years, i.e. the take‐up or utilization of each agency's budget. This must play a role in the future allocation of agency funding in the European Union. When we look at this year's Kellett‐Bowman report on the discharge, we see that for Dublin there was an underspend of ECU 140 000; for Thessaloniki an underspend of ECU 1.28 million. There are reasons for this, but these come into play when we look at future spending patterns. I am sure the Commissioner is aware of these. However, most importantly, we are concerned to look at the work programme which is set out and properly costed. That work programme must be agreed with the various policy committees.

The second issue is transparency. What we have tried to ensure is that the agencies come forward with a staffing organigramme. We have succeeded in persuading the agencies to do this, but the work programmes are costed and we can see horizontally through Title I, Title II and Title III expenditure of the agencies' report, what each project is going to cost. This is most important for us as a Budgets Committee, more important for the substantive committees, and it will be important for the rapporteur for the Committee on Budgetary Control when we come to look at the discharge later on. We are making progress here.

My last point concerns accountability. The key issue is how we allocate resources. As Mrs Dührkop, Mr Tomlinson and Mr Wynn have said, we are utilizing EU citizens money'. This must be seen to be done in a manner which is transparent not only to Parliament but also to the client group of the agency and the citizenship itself. To achieve these goals, we have established and will continue to hold regular meetings with the agency heads and the rapporteurs of the substantive committees. That process will continue this year.

How can we conclude? Mr Liikanen made the point about ‚serenity’. He said that peace has broken out. It certainly has. Peace has broken out with the agencies. We have a new process set up, but that vigilance is going to be important. I know that one of his colleagues, Mr Bangemann, said about Alicante that we must be vigilant. The Budget Committee of Alicante is spending ECU 24 million on a new building about which the Commission knew very little and about which Parliament was not even informed. Vigilance is the key, Mr Liikanen! We must tighten up procedures and we will monitor them both through the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control.

  Ghilardotti (PSE). – (IT) Madam President, I too wish to congratulate Mrs Dührkop on her specific and essential report and recall that, within the framework of the rigour imposed by the Union and the Member States this year, the 1999 budget, as the rapporteur mentioned, should be the first budget of the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and should therefore contain choices that relate to the innovations of the Treaty itself. This means that the budget should favour employment, as has been point out, through investment in infrastructure, support for small and medium‐sized enterprises, investment in research and development, but also support for measures within the framework of local employment initiatives and regional pacts for the third system, in line – unlike what Mr Tillich maintained – with the commitment assumed by the European Parliament last October, as precisely stated by Mrs Dührkop in her report.

Training and refresher courses are considered to be two of the key instruments for developing adaptability and entrepreneurship and, above all, for enabling young people and women to find jobs. These are the guidelines, and they were also recalled at the Extraordinary Luxembourg Summit. That is why the LEONARDO and SOCRATES programmes and, more generally, education and training programmes need adequate financing.

Social dialogue, which is given an ever more important role by the Treaty itself, should find the necessary corresponding provisions and strengthening measures in the budget. Mrs Dührkop rightly considers that the 1999 budget should be the citizens" budget, aimed at enhancing and improving economic and social cohesion. In this context, the activities and networks of nongovernmental organizations, which make a fundamental contribution to the development of the European social policy for the elderly, the disabled and for the fight against social exclusion and which represent an essential means for citizens to take part in the construction of Europe, should continue to receive adequate support.

I wish to conclude by taking up a point, mentioned by Mr Samland, that seems particularly important to me: an essential condition for ending the procedure on a positive note is for the Council to sign the agreement on the legal bases. I do not think the Council has any alibis any more from this point of view, and so I wish to conclude the debate – as I am the last one to speak – with this commitment: the Minutes of this meeting should be forwarded to the Council so that it knows that Parliament is no longer prepared, this year, not to reach an agreement on this matter.

  Dührkop Dührkop (PSE), rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, although it might be out of the ordinary in terms of procedure, I would like to say to Mr Tillich – and this is very important – that I am from San Sebastián and that I am a Real Madrid supporter because otherwise I would have problems with my two children when I go back home.

  President . – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00 noon.

However, I would like to draw your attention to one more thing. You still have the opportunity, for 24 more minutes, to play an April Fool"s trick or have one played on you. Be careful!

(The sitting was closed at 11.35 p.m.)