Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, let me thank both the rapporteurs for the work they have done this year. I believe that we have been able to incorporate in this Budget a number of things that not only consolidate what we already have, and make clear where our priorities lie, but also make it abundantly clear that, whilst retaining what has stood the test of time, we also want to demonstrate a flexible approach to the tasks with which the future will present us. Let me give as an example our desire to use more funds for the prevention of crises rather than for trouble-shooting. We want to combat the VAT fraud in Europe, so that the European Union’s receipts can be improved, and so that we do not have to extract from taxpayers money that other people should be honest enough to pay. Fraud stands at a high level, and that is something we want to combat. There is consensus on the need for us to take action to deal with it. We are preparing the European Union for demographic change and for the demands that this will bring with it; at any rate, we have taken this as our theme, and we want more and improved cooperation in the war on organised crime. This Budget reflects our desire to strengthen and support Eurojust and Europol. This European Union of ours will continue in future to be characterised by small and medium-sized enterprises, which, as they give life to the economy, we want to support and enable them to enjoy the advantages of the internal market and use them to the utmost. We will orient this Budget as far as possible towards savings. What this means is that our group has looked closely at the various areas with an eye to ensuring that what is demanded of the Member States – which are themselves currently having problems with their budgets – is nothing more than is unavoidable and necessary. We will stick to that line in each of the various categories, as it is clear to us that the multiannual financial framework that we have laid down following negotiations with the Council is not merely optional, but a fixed point of reference, and it sets the bounds within which we want to manoeuvre. In category 1B, then, we will not be advocating that the upper limits be exceeded, nor will we vote for it. All those in this House who want to do that must know that this resolution may well be only at first reading stage – and so it can be said that it does not count, as the counting is done at the end – but it does indicate whether or not we want to keep to the upper limits in this area. We will not, in any case give our support to any attempt to exceed the upper limits. In other areas, too, we want to ensure the targeted use of the money at our disposal, but also that we keep to what we have promised. We will make available the staff that enlargement requires. We will adjust the multiannual programmes in order that nothing of what they contain should be lost. We will also make sure that the Structural Funds contain sufficient payment appropriations for the candidate countries, to whom it will have to be made plain that this means that, next year or right through the period we have negotiated with them, they will get not one euro extra; there is only the possibility of certain obligations being discharged earlier. We will call for payments from the Structural Funds to be increased, for we believe that the existing backlog in payments must not be tolerated. We have to ensure that what has been announced and promised is actually kept to, and that we actually do whatever we can to help support the regions. We will therefore be asking for additional funding, which is also what the members of the Council, the individual Member States, will say that they want when asked individually. As soon as the Council meets as a body, it always has a problem with making sufficient funding available. So, although we will be calling for additional funding, that will – as you have said yourself – of course remain within the bounds of what is necessary. Commissioner Schreyer has said that there has never before been such a small difference between your and our proposals. The biggest problem is with category 4. As Mr Garriga Polledo has said, we have seen to it that our traditional areas are maintained, but this House has before it an amendment on aid for Iraq, in which EUR 500 million are asked for – EUR 500 million, even though we know from the most diverse published sources, especially the Commission’s own, that it will not in any way be possible to properly administer these EUR 500 million in Iraq next year. No administrative structures are in place, and there is nobody on the ground who can put the money to proper use. Even though there are no projects to which the money is to be allocated, this figure of EUR 500 million has been put before us, and a majority in the Committee on Budgets has even adopted it. To those who tabled this amendment, I say that, just as involvement in the war in Iraq split the European Union, so their amendment divides this House. They are not interested in a joint solution; rather, they want the EUR 500 million to serve as a warning that we could use it now, and want to be congratulated on doing so. The money must, however, be properly applied, as we have to demand it of our taxpayers, who know that it must also be found within the framework of the Financial Perspective, and that the framework of the Financial Perspective will not come up with the money. They are urging that the Financial Perspective be cancelled. That we will not do under any circumstances. We will be in favour of sufficient funding being made available, in which respect the Commission proposal is a very good one that deserves to be taken seriously, and we unreservedly endorse it. We will insist that these funds be used in accordance with a UN mandate. We will support Commissioner Patten in his line, we will see to it that the debate on how the money is to be spent focuses on helping people to help themselves, for Iraq must get help, but we have had to help others in the past. Afghanistan did not get more than this; it got less. Iraq has the potential to be a rich country. Giving it more than we gave Afghanistan would be criminal; it would be to treat with disdain the other regions of the world that we supported in the past. Under no circumstances will a single vote of ours support this amendment. (Applause)

Political group: PSE