Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, firstly, Mr Böge, a minor correction: I would like to thank the three rapporteurs, not two. Mr Pittella also submitted an extremely important report to us; I would therefore like to thank the three rapporteurs for the genuinely constructive cooperation which has accompanied the budgetary procedure this year. I must also thank all those who have approached us from the individual committees with their requests and who, in the majority of cases, in the vast majority of cases, have shown a great deal of understanding for the fact that in a limited framework much is desirable but not everything is possible. We are dealing here with monies which are of course limited, and indeed limited with our approval, but which must reflect the tasks which we have carried out at European level. The European Union budget for the year 2000 is a special budget, not just because it was initiated by the old Parliament, but because there was also a binding interinstitutional agreement which we adopted at the same time and which has had to be continued after the re-election. It is this interinstitutional agreement which restricts us, but which has also opened up additional opportunities for us; I shall come back to this. Thirdly, Budget 2000 is noteworthy because this year we are entering the period of the next Financial Perspective, which runs to 2006, and today we must put down important markers for the coming years. Fourthly, following the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Union is in a situation of facing many new challenges, for example in matters of internal policies, the area of freedom, security and justice, the employment chapter or increased opportunities in health protection and even consumer protection. However, additional tasks also require that we make available the necessary funds, since otherwise it is nothing more than lip service and budgets should not be mere lip service. We must, therefore, clearly define our priorities and make it very clear what they are. We have done this in the past and will do it in the future. Turning to the President-in-Office of the Council, I must say: obviously for us this is about people, people in the form of the taxpayer who must raise what we spend here, but also the people to whom the money must be made available, for whom we are deciding policies. We are not making policies as a game between the Commission, the Council and Parliament for our own benefit, but in order to create the best possible conditions for the development of the European Union and for the people with whom we are dealing. In the past we have placed great importance on the citizens being able to verify that we ensure careful handling of our taxes. In terms of appropriations which concern commitment appropriations, Budget 2000 is lower than the budget 1999. Just go to the finance ministers in your Member States and tell them that they must submit a budget plan which is lower than the plan for the previous year. I would like to see that. That is the first thing we must get on top of. Here we are acting accordingly and anyone should be aware of this if they come to us and say that we only want increases. That is not the case. We handle the money very, very carefully. However, because we are working with and on behalf of people, one of our particular tasks is Category 4, external action. Here the Council has actually come up and said: we want to finance an important future task and an important current task which must be spread over the coming years, i.e. aid for the people of Kosovo. To finance that we are carrying out a 10% cut in all lines. Mr Böge said that this is visionless and this is a neat term. Are you aware, for example, that in these lines we must then cut by 10% financial aid for Israel and the Palestinian people, i.e. the aid for establishing peace in the region? Are you aware that we must cut by 10% population programmes and funds for combating the scourge of AIDS in developing countries? Are you aware that tackling anti-personnel mines, which is also in our budget lines, will have to be cut by 10%, or that we must cut by 10% measures by non-governmental organisations in developing countries, e.g. for street children in Guatemala or in other regions of the world because we do not want to have any vision, because we do not want to take a close look at where these funds ought to come from? This cannot be the policy which we want to pursue. An across-the-board cut with the lawnmower is indefensible and, therefore, we must and will fight it and we will cite Category 4 as part of the interinstitutional agreement. Although it is difficult, we will observe the other parts of the interinstitutional agreement. We also have problems with other categories, e.g. Category 3, which contains the traditional focal points of our policy: environmental policy, youth training programmes, research and trans-European networks with their possibilities for creating jobs and improving our competitiveness in global dealings. Here also things are very tight because we are outlining ever more tasks but are not getting the necessary funds. We are shifting tasks from national to European level, expressis verbis, but then we are not getting the appropriate financial resources. This cannot be a sound policy. We need to discuss this. All the same, within this Category we will not endeavour to increase the funds. Within the interinstitutional agreement, we have established that, in future, agricultural policy too can be definitively co-decided by us. In future, we cannot just promote the production of individual products, but the development of rural areas. This is an extremely important matter for us, and finally, allow me to say something on staffing policy. In this too we have acted extremely responsibly, as in previous years. Except in two central areas, we have not provided for additional jobs. OLAF must be strengthened, whilst the second area concerns veterinary protection and food controls, where we have made a very modest increase of five staff. This much we owe to the people, who demand that we ensure that they have safe food to eat. These, in brief, are the focal points. (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE