Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we acknowledge the Commission's preliminary draft budget and, as always, shall check very closely to ensure that sufficient account has been taken of the priorities set in advance by the European Parliament. By that I mean both new and traditional priorities. No doubt the rapporteur, Costa Neves, will have something to say about this now. We shall have to check that the Union's revenue is going to be used efficiently and for its intended purpose within the framework of our budgetary law, the financial regulation and the commitments entered into. And we shall have to look very closely to ensure that due account has been taken of the reforms announced, only some of which have just begun. Obviously, we too want a speedy and fair budgetary procedure without too much arm wrestling. The Council needs to heed that more than in previous years. I should also like to add the following in the wake of the discussions and votes in the Committee on Budgets this year: we shall oppose any suggestion which tries to trim or limit the budgetary powers of the European Parliament in any way, such as by amending the financial regulation or in some other wondrous manner. I also advise the Commission to take a constructive position which favours Parliament here on all these questions. That will be a help to all of us who so keenly refer to ourselves as allies in the European integration process. The truth is we have commitments of EUR 100 billion, payments of 97.8 billion, payments well below the ceiling or 1.06% of GNP or, to put it another way, EUR 265 per capita of the population, of which EUR 121 per capita is for agricultural for agricultural produce, policy and the countryside. That sounds solid enough. Taken overall, it is geared towards stability and certainly does not overburden the Member States, the taxpayers or consumers, as many official but emotional and one-sided accounts would have us believe. At the same time, however, it is the penultimate budget of the Union of the Fifteen. We need to bear that in mind at this point. I just want to list a few points which will be important to us. It is good that the Commission intends to do more about clearing the backlog of payments. Commissioner Schreyer has just quoted a few figures here. But we also need a guarantee that payments for new commitments will be dealt with speedily so as to avoid another mountain of backlogs in the future. We also welcome thoughts of setting up an earmarked reserve in the agricultural area. The idea of creating a contingency reserve, given the imponderable nature of these markets, was originally Parliament's. I would add that the ad hoc procedure has proven to be an increasingly constructive procedure between the institutions over recent years. The actual figures will be available in the autumn. It is good that the Commission has left room for manoeuvre in internal policy. Nonetheless, the reasons behind certain estimates require clarification. For example, –5.3% for culture and the audiovisual sector, below average rates of +1.8% in the area of social dimension and employment and –14.5% in the area of the labour market and technological innovation. These are examples of where there is a real need for consultation. In foreign policy – which was addressed earlier – the question arises of how democratic control and discussion of operational expenditure under the common foreign and security policy will take place in future. Then there is the fact that Asia is down 2.2%, Latin America is down 6% and food aid is down 4.5%. The question is, has the necessary balance between traditional priorities and new tasks been duly safeguarded or might this positioning be construed as concentrating on Europe and its neighbours. That would be too little for me from a foreign policy point of view. Commissioner, I should like to address one final point: administration. I should like to remind you that Parliament stipulated that the second tranche of 317 posts was linked to the early retirement commitment, so as to bring about a bit more budgetary neutrality, and it is up to the institutions to achieve this. I remember the resolution passed in spring last year, in which we clearly stated that the second tranche was linked to very clear, precise considerations as to how measures to guarantee the ability of the European Union to act during the course of the enlargement process could be prepared while retaining the substance of the acquis communautaire. I should like to remind you of this resolution. Clearly, therefore, we shall all be called on to discuss the introduction of and introduce a realistic pre-accession and accession strategy as of this year, including in the administrative area, so that we have sufficient time left over to include this aspect in the budgetary policy. I get the impression from all the discussions that resolving these questions will be more difficult and more complicated that resolving many agricultural and structural problems, which is why we intend to tackle these and other questions during the budgetary procedure. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE