Mr President, the budget for the year 2000 is, for the institutions other than the Commission, very simple. The Council has adopted all of Parliament’s amendments. It has also given its approval to Parliament’s own budget through a gentlemen’s agreement, which means they have not interfered in it at all. I would like to express my sincerest thanks for that. In the reading of next year’s budget, however, a position has to be taken on the change which was not in the original estimate. I refer to the situation which was caused by the fact that the Court of First Instance approved the TDI group as a parliamentary political group. According to parliamentary rules, this group has the right to a staff of 14. The Secretary-General obtained the staffing resources by reallocating twelve of the fourteen staff necessary. To make good the difference the Council of Presidents finally proposed two new temporary C5 posts and one A6 post. So that this issue would be debated according to Parliament’s agenda, the Committee on Budgets called for compliance with Article 183. The President sent a preliminary draft for the budget, which the Committee debated yesterday and adopted by virtue of the report on the proposal. This report is now being debated in connection with next year’s budget, and we intend to vote on it tomorrow, Wednesday, when it is hoped the Commission will also present its preliminary letter of amendment in accordance with practice. In this way the Council could debate and approve these matters on Wednesday, so that the issue might be dealt with in connection with the rest of the budget on Thursday 16 December. What has happened does not mean that more money is being asked for next year’s budget, but only to create posts. However, it shows how ponderous and cumbersome our administrative procedures are. There is a total of 1700 different C posts in the European Parliament. Of these, some are vacant and some are to become so. For that reason, it is urgent that we make the current administrative rules in Parliament more flexible, as they hamper the smooth and proper flow of administration. The European Parliament is now adding new posts in connection with the budget now being discussed, which is not consistent with disciplined financial administration – not, at least, if we compare the additions to those in the previous five years. We cannot nor must not, however, leave disciplined budgetary policy to the responsibility of the Committee on Budgets: it is naturally the Council of Presidents and the chairmen of the political groups that bear the greatest responsibility, especially where Parliament is concerned. Finally I would like to say a few words in general about budgetary procedure. The biggest problem this year was category 4: external action. During the debate new items of expenditure were added to it. First there was the EUR 500 million proposed by the European Union Summit conference for Kosovo. Then, later, we had the fisheries agreement with Morocco; and then Turkey and other headings totalling 190 million euros or nearly EUR 700 million altogether, which represents 15% of the financial perspectives. As the budget for 1999 had already very nearly reached its ceiling, it was really quite difficult to suppose that such great degrees of flexibility might be found in other areas of expenditure. Among the members of the Council there had been no desire to alter the financial perspectives, at least up till now, and then not even now, not even by means of transfers between categories. Furthermore, as a counterweight to the use of the flexibility instrument, immense reductions in other areas of expenditure were being and are being asked for. Thus, the task of the Committee on Budgets was a very simple one: to adapt the budget to the financial perspectives. As a result, only EUR 100 million were allocated to Kosovo in the budget at this stage. The Council dropped its earlier estimate of EUR 500 million to 360 million. From this we may draw at least two conclusions. Before aid is promised in the name of the European Union, it would perhaps be in order to check whether the promises can be kept. Such promises, which mean making corresponding cuts elsewhere, have clearly to be considered carefully. The same also goes for long-term programmes. If the EU means to spend EUR 5.5 billion on the reconstruction of the whole Balkans area over the next six or seven years, which is to say EUR 800 – 900 million a year, it would be useful to know how the promise is going to be backed in terms of finance. In this respect, the report by the Committee on Budgets now under discussion is relevant, as it emphasises the need to be realistic. Secondly, the European Union has two budgetary authorities, Parliament being one of them. Parliament has not accepted this duty and these obligations: the Member States have imposed them. As Parliament is one of the budgetary authorities, it also bears a responsibility, and this is a fact that cannot be ignored in the workings of the EU. During the last few days and weeks, the negotiations have been – at least in my view – talk about very minor matters, as nearly each one of the finance ministers of the Member States and even their state secretaries handle certainly much larger sums on their own. In so saying, I do not want to criticise the country holding the presidency, which has certainly done everything necessary to achieve harmony. We need a budget for next year, and it must be achieved. If we do not get agreement we will have to continue the talks in January. Finally, I would like to congratulate the main rapporteur, Jean-Louis Bourlanges, for his excellent work, which is obviously still continuing, and thank him and the chairman of the Committee on Budgets, Terence Wynn, for their good and constructive cooperation and the diverse range of support they gave. Likewise, I wish to thank the group’s coordinators, especially Mr Böge of the Group and Mr Walter of the Group for their good cooperation, and all the members of the committee. My special thanks go to Suvi-Anne Siimes, for her role as person responsible for the Council’s budget, and who has really got to grips with her job and applied herself to it conscientiously. I would like to especially thank Heikki Joustie, who was involved as official representative, and who made his own splendid contribution in circumstances that were unusually awkward as far as the international situation was concerned. IN THE CHAIR: MR L. MARINHOVice-President

Political group: ELDR