Madam President, Commissioner, Council Representative, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I wish to thank our two rapporteurs, Mrs Gill and Mr Mulder, for the method they have used and for the quality of their work on this new budgetary framework. This has enabled us to vote on a budget for twenty-five countries, taking up the traditional budgetary priorities and Parliament’s constant concerns, relating specifically to our core traditional policies, but also to the concerns that we have been expressing for years on the subject of micro-enterprises, citizens’ information and policies of justice, security and solidarity. Having said that, the problems raised by the draft budget that the Council submitted to us do not bode well for the future, in particular the historically low level of payment appropriations: less than 1% of GDP, the likes of which we have to go back more than seventeen years to see. The Council, which is obsessed with the health of national economies, is acting like an accountant but certainly not like a manager and even less as if it had a vision for the European Union’s future. The discrepancy between the codecision agreements and what has been included in the budget, the discrepancy between the projects for economic recovery, the project for a knowledge-based society for all twenty-five countries and the reality of the budget sap the credibility of the Union as a whole. So what has happened to the spirit of Lisbon? The EU budget does not match our ambition, or our expectations. This year, two headings fail to comply with the financial perspective. First, EUR 83 million too much has been earmarked for rural development, which highlights the needs created by the CAP’s new approach. Nevertheless, observing budgetary rigour, I propose that we give up this surplus and prepare better for the 2005 financial year. Let me now turn to external policy, where the problem is quite different. The Commission has made proposals for the reconstruction of Iraq that are reasonable and acceptable in budgetary terms. What is the point, then, of the proposal for EUR 500 million, apart from reviving splits that have cost us so much credibility on the international stage? All Europeans should quickly find the path of realistic wisdom and mutual respect. Lastly, I wish to recall the importance for Parliament of policies for communicating with the citizens. The serious incident between the Commission and Europe’s information bodies weakens this policy and demonstrates the difficulties that the Commission has in respecting the priorities set by Parliament. The new financial regulation must not be called into question, as it allows for greater transparency in relations with the bodies that receive European subsidies. Having said that, the implementing arrangements endanger three hundred essential information organisations. It is therefore obvious that a solution must be found to ensure that their work can continue. This serious incident nevertheless warrants one fundamental observation: why did the Commission not warn us in time? Like any administration, it has a duty to inform political representatives. This course of action was not taken even though it was stipulated in the confidence pact concluded during the implementation of the administrative reform. We voted in favour of giving confidence; we gave you the resources and in return we expected the promised effectiveness for the implementation of our political choices and particularly of our entire budget. This is an essential requirement if we are to be able, in future, to develop real policies of growth and solidarity and policies for the future in the context of an enlarged Union that wishes to succeed for the benefit of all its citizens.

Political group: PSE