Mr President, the rapporteurs, Mr Mulder and Mrs Gill, have worked hard over the past year to present a budget which reflects the European Parliament’s priorities but which at the same time fits within the stringent framework of the financial perspectives. They succeeded in this, and I should like to thank them both warmly for their efforts, their work, but also for the good team spirit and pleasant cooperation which I have experienced from both. Despite sound preparations, this discussion of the budget appeared to be precarious last week because at the IGC, it transpired that a number of Heads of Government had had enough of parliamentary democracy and threatened to remove the budgetary rights which Parliament has had for over 30 years. They believe that Parliament has too much power and that it sometimes misuses it in order to impose its views in other areas where it has no authority. That is, of course, a little bizarre as a reason, though. If we enjoy parliamentary rights, we can use them, but also in a way that does not please the Heads of Government. While I do not doubt the legitimacy of the decisions of this House, I do, at times, doubt its intelligence. My group particularly disapproves of the fact that on every occasion, the majority of this House wants to place some of the funds in reserve in order to score a political point. The members of the Group of the European People’s Party , in particular, are very adept at this. Accordingly, some of the funds intended for the reconstruction of Afghanistan have been placed in reserve and will not be released until the Commission has taken action against the large-scale drugs trade on the ground. Like yourselves, I naturally have a great deal of faith in the Commission, but this appears a little ambitious for our officials in Brussels. The media point, however, has been scored, it has been said, ‘You are opposed to drugs’. Terrific! This does mean, however, that Afghanistan has less money to spend, or does the Group of the European People’s Party intend to release this money at a later date without one single measure being taken against the drugs trade? Some of the subsidy for non-governmental organisations is also being placed in reserve. The majority of the Members of this House here present would like a little more information from the Commission about how this money has been spent in previous years, and that is of course fine; I want this too. A reserve, however, does not only function as a big stick, it also claims victims. After all, it entails a huge amount of administration and, with this, overheads, because the Commission can only award subsidies to organisations up to the amount that is actively mentioned on the budget line. So, either the Commission will delay the procedures for the award of the subsidies and will wait until all the money has been released – only to be told off by Parliament, of course, for not spending the money quickly enough – or the Commission has to run the procedure twice, with all the red-tape that this entails, and we are, of course, firmly opposed to this red-tape. The same problem occurs in the recruitment of personnel. A small proportion of the new posts that the Commission needs in order to guarantee the smooth running of enlargement is now being placed in reserve. I can well imagine the reasons for this. Parliament wants more information about the steps that are taken in the Commission’s reform process. That is a good idea and we must request, or even demand, this from the Commission, and, if it does not provide this information, we should have the courage to take political steps against it. Frustrating the recruitment of personnel for enlargement is not, however, the right way to go about this. The Group of the is not, in principle, opposed to deploying the instrument of reserve if it is a means to an end. We ourselves, in fact, suggested placing some of the money for KEDO in reserve when North Korea failed to adhere to all the conditions of this nuclear energy programme. We have also voted for certain other reserves, provided that they clearly served a purpose and that this purpose was achievable within a clear timeframe. However, the instrument of reserves is sometimes used too lightly. We must certainly not prevent the Commission from being able to function properly, certainly in view of the fact that third parties also stand to be adversely affected. We have asked for a split vote for a number of reserves, and I hope that the groups will reconsider whether they simply place the money on the line and subsequently judge the Commission on its actions.

Political group: Verts-ALE