Chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, I wish to make three comments. The first concerns the amounts necessary to meet the aspirations of everyone who wants to see a successful Europe in the future – whether that ceiling should be 1% of GNI, or 1.24%, or somewhere in between – and to remind everyone that today is the start of what will probably be a 12-month process. Even though Mr Prodi has made a statement, if we go by past practices I do not expect a conclusion on this for at least a year. In December Mr Colom i Naval, who is the rapporteur on the financial perspectives, presented a working document in the Committee on Budgets on the appraisal of the financial perspectives from their inception in 1988 to 2002. Over those 15 years, the average budget implementation is, remarkably, 1% of GDP. The Council could say that is sufficient, but to get an average of 1% over those years means we have to spend above 1% in certain years. In fact, we spent up to the figure mentioned by Mr Prodi – 1.15% – in 1993. My point is that this type of flexibility is needed if we are to continue to have a decent average. If that average has to be 1%, then there will be years when we will have to exceed 1% quite significantly. I am still not sure whether the Council's figure of 1% includes the EDF. I do not think it does, but that would therefore make it 1.03% at best. I want to make a comment to those Member States which criticised the Stability Pact for being too rigid. They should also see that if there is a case for flexibility in the Stability Pact, then we do not need rigidity in the European Union budget by sticking at 1%, as some Member States propose. That has been shown in Category 4, where, without the flexibility instrument, we could not have financed the actions in Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq or in other areas. We need that flexibility in the budget. Speaking in a personal capacity, we could manage within the 1% if those same Member States had not already agreed that agricultural expenditure should be set in concrete up to 2013. (Applause) I quote from the Commission's document: 'A ceiling around 1% of GNI would fail to meet the European Council commitments on agricultural payments, would undermine the phasing-in of cohesion policy in the ten new Member States and would jeopardise existing levels of other policies.' It goes on to say: 'Alternatively, cuts would be needed across the board and existing agreements would have to be reopened, including the amounts decided at the Brussels European Council of October 2002.' I hope the Council takes cognisance of that fact. My second comment is specifically to the Council. To get an agreement on the new financial perspectives needs an interinstitutional agreement. I just want to remind the Council that we are one of those institutions, and it will need Parliament's agreement to get an interinstitutional agreement. We do not care if we do not get it: we will just go back to Article 272 of the Treaty and will still manage the budget without the Council's say-so. That is not a threat, it is just a comment to the Council, which it should bear in mind as we go through this procedure. (Applause) My last point is that for almost the past 15 years – all the time I have been in this Parliament and on the Committee on Budgets – the rapporteur for the financial perspectives has been Mr Colom i Naval. This will probably be his last plenary session – I am breaking news here. He will be offered the job of head of the Court of Auditors in the Catalan Government, and no doubt will be taking it up very shortly. (Applause) I want to pay tribute to his unceasing work; he knows more about this subject than anyone else – dare I say, boringly so! He can quote the interinstitutional agreement chapter and verse, but I have been glad of it on many occasions. I want to thank him for all his work over those 15 years, and also wish him well for his new post. I hope I express the whole of Parliament's wish in that sentiment. (Applause)

Political group: PSE