Mr President, the 1994 decision on budgetary discipline is, without a doubt, outdated on several counts. A great deal of water has passed under the bridge since it was first applied and numerous important changes have come to bear in the interim, the most important being the introduction of EMU on 1 January 1999, the pursuit of enlargement with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Cyprus and Malta and, finally, Agenda 2000, which sets out, inter alia, the changes needed in the agricultural sector. These changes and the strengthening of budgetary discipline apparent in both the conclusions of the Berlin European Council and the new interinstitutional agreement are the main reasons why this decision needs to be amended and supplemented with new mechanisms. The Committee has referred to these developments and has drawn on experience to date in implementing the current decision in order to arrive at today’s proposal, which seeks to amend and strengthen the current guideline, which refers specifically to agricultural expenditure. However, the proposal does not confine itself to adjusting certain provisions; it also makes changes to tighten budgetary discipline and to strengthen the procedure used to achieve it, as evidenced by the preventive nature of the proposed measures. This marks a new approach and entails an increase in the management responsibilities of the European Commission. The changes which accompany the report under discussion accommodate the majority of proposals relating to adjustments to provisions. In addition, however, certain adjustments have been improved and rendered more functional, without detracting from their efficiency. Certain measures which were automatic are now no longer so, while care has been taken not to over-react. This means that the facilities provided for in the interinstitutional agreement must be used before these measures are applied. It was also decided to reject the proposal to replace the decision by a regulation since the fact that the measures are adopted as a decision has no effect on their efficacy. This change merely seeks to maintain a balance between the authority of the institutions. In all, the fundamental arrangements are as stringent as before and there are no changes which affect the principle of budgetary discipline. Budgetary discipline is indispensable and must govern both Community and national budgets, forming as it does the basis for sound budgetary management. However, I would stress that budgetary discipline is not an end in itself and must not stand in the way of proper and efficient application of the basic provisions of Community law or, in this case, affect the basic principles of the common agricultural policy. Mr President, I consider that the report under discussion and the proposals contained in it, as formulated by the Committee on Budgets, represent a strict but balanced and efficient way of strengthening budgetary discipline. Budgetary discipline affects all of us, but it can only be applied where there is basic cooperation between the institutions and with the Member States. Finally, Mr President, I should like to point out that there was very little input in the procedure leading up to this report; apart from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and a few fellow members who helped with the changes, I cannot in all honesty say that there was a great deal of input. I realise that my report is far from perfect and that numerous other changes could have been included; however, I fear that Parliament finds the word discipline somewhat disagreeable.

Political group: PPE-DE