Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your presentation. I should like to pick up straight away on your closing words. I do not think that we should harp on about principles during our discussion of the Budget 2001. But I also think that this is a call directed at the Council rather than a call directed at us, notwithstanding what has been submitted to us parliamentarians so far from the preliminary draft budget for evaluation. This leads me to say that, first and foremost, the Commission has taken account of the Council’s wish that it present as economical a budget as possible. You, yourself, said just now that the Budget 2001 is only 1% higher than the Budget 2000 without agricultural expenditure and we all know that agricultural expenditure accounts for a huge part of our budget. To then talk of rigorous financial management to us alone is, of course, completely misplaced, especially as we here in Parliament are in favour of economical financial management. The debate and the budgets which we have voted in the past demonstrate this and that is the way it should stay. Allow me to remind the House: agricultural expenditure for the organisation of the markets is to rise by 7.6%. Expenditure on rural development – and you stressed that we of course set great store by rural development – is to rise by 10.1%. On the face of it, these relative figures alone, i.e. the percentages, are highly satisfactory. But we all know that market expenditure in the current budget is over eight times higher than expenditure on rural development and that market expenditure in the next budget will be over nine times higher than expenditure on rural development. This may take account of the wishes of the Council and of Council’s decisions, but it does not take quite such good account of the wishes of Parliament. It is through Category 3, which encompasses all our priorities – not only Category 3, Category 4 also of course – but it is mainly through internal policies that all citizens perceive the European Union. When you see that the budget has been set at around EUR 6.13 billion and then you compare that with market expenditure, then you see that market expenditure is six times higher than the whole of Category 3. Knowing that four-fifths of all expenditure is tied in with multiannual programmes, and that, of course, 80% of all these multiannual programmes are decided under the codecision procedure, then the 1.4% increase proposed by the Commission is purely and simply the effect of the increase in research expenditure. Nevertheless, you want to increase this expenditure by 8% and research expenditure accounts for over 60% of Category 3. I know that the Commission is endeavouring to take account in the budget of the priorities it has accepted, namely creating a knowledge-based society and improving the quality of life of our citizens. So far so good. We can support that. But what about Parliament’s priorities? We discussed our priorities well in advance both among ourselves and with the Commission, and we adopted our guidelines well in advance, including for Category 3. You have just picked out a few points but when we see that education and youth policy are to rise by 1.2% then we must say – looking at the entire heading – that that is because next year is the European Year of Languages and the expenditure for it will rise by 275%. That is perfectly normal and we have supported that. If you look at the Culture and Audiovisual Media heading, there is a 2.7% increase. I would have expected it to be higher. Information and communications have risen by 4%. But what about social dialogue and employment – down 4.7%. What about energy policy, which we have fought for tooth and nail time and again? You have cut it by 8.2% and you have cut environmental policy by a hefty 28.2%. To my mind, the preliminary draft budget, as it now stands, takes no account of Parliament’s priorities. Mrs Schreyer, what I personally hold dear to my heart, namely innovation and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises – yes, you have put a figure in the budget for this, but you have cut what we still had in the last budget by nearly 70%. We urgently need to discuss this so that the budget also clearly sets out our priorities. I have just this to say about Category 4: I think it is asking for trouble to support Serbia with such a small amount in 2001 and, at the same time, to say that once Serbia has democratised we can again use our flexibility instrument. And one last comment which cuts across both Categories 3 and 4: what about the timetable on the legal framework for the offices for technical and administrative support or transformation promised by you and Commissioner Kinnock? You wrote to us last December saying that a proposal would be submitted in the middle of April. We are all dying to see it. It is now the middle of May and we hope that it will make an appearance shortly because it is also important for our budgetary procedure.

Political group: PSE