Mr President, Commissioner, let me say at the outset that my group welcomes this proposal because it makes the basic statistical data for an economic and monetary union directed at stability and real growth more harmonised, directly comparable and more accurate. We have already heard about the various aspects involved. What I think is crucial is that henceforth the statistical data will be more reliable and comparable. We need that because the various European Union bodies and all the Member States within monetary union have to be able to depend on one another. It is important to adjust the procedure for two reasons. Firstly, for the single market. It is most important quite generally in a single market to have reliable and directly comparable data and statistics so as to give an accurate picture of the situation and development trends. Secondly, for economic and monetary union. The regulation dating from 1993 on the application of the Protocol must be brought into harmony with the methodology of the European system of accounts at national and regional level. That is vitally important to the accurate and reliable calculation of deficits. This adjustment will make it possible to estimate the deficits and debts in the Member States more precisely. These technical changes will have a very real impact on the actual position of the countries, since the data will automatically be amended in line with the public deficit. I also welcome the fact that the estimates of the deficits for the 1999 financial year that are due to be published in March 2000 are already based on the new ESA, i.e. the analysis is based on consolidated aggregates that are economically relevant. Let me also briefly use this debate as an opportunity to urge all the governments and political parties to do their utmost to ensure that this procedure never has to be initiated for an excessive deficit. It is good that the procedure exists. We need it because it lends our criteria the necessary seriousness and credibility. The citizens ask what happens if the criteria are not met. Thanks to these procedures and other measures we can prove that we are taking the criteria and ourselves seriously. Another important point is that we must do all we can, not just to prevent excessive deficits, but also to further reduce public deficits. I know what I am talking about and I will conclude by telling you why I am so glad we are holding this debate! We are currently holding a debate in my own country on whether the former minister for finance actually gave us accurate information on the deficit. In my country, Austria, new elections had to be held in 1995 in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and persuade our political partner to rethink his approach. I must also tell you that in the year 2000, when there is so much talk about us, the coalition talks with the SPÖ failed – and unfortunately so – because the Socialist Party brought down the negotiated austerity and consolidation programme. That is a prime reason why the new government had to be formed in Austria; for the Austrian People’s Party, the ÖVP, wants to continue to act as guarantor of economic stability. The ÖVP wants to ensure that we continue to meet the Maastricht criteria and reduce the public deficit, as we have agreed here.

Political group: PPE-DE