Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the context of this joint debate on the European Commission’s political strategy for 2004, I am bound to recall that this is the first budget in an enlarged Europe covering the new Member States. The European Union budget must therefore, now more than ever, contribute to achieving social and regional cohesion, both in the new States and in the current 15 Member States I support the fact that the priorities selected for this 2004 budget are the completion of the internal market, the strategy for sustainable development, and achieving the Lisbon strategy, in the aim of making the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. This is, in fact, one of the major challenges facing the European Union, and which stand out because they have immediate and practical implications for every European citizen. I also welcome the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice which, despite all the criticism it has rightly generated, has at least one virtue: it has increased the number of policies covered by the codecision procedure, thereby giving the European Parliament greater power to act. Nevertheless, and because the situation is not entirely rosy, I should like to make some criticisms of the European Commission document that has been presented to us today. Firstly, I agree with the rapporteur on the need to insist that the European Commission makes increasing rural development aid under the CAP its priority guideline. This is precisely the area in which the greatest disparities between Member States can be seen. Secondly, I urge the Commission to step up the process of streamlining and improving the implementation of the budget, especially in its structural funds policy. In this context, I support the implementation of more reliable payment provisions, and the European Parliament being better informed about the level of payments underway, by programme, in order to respond to the risks of payments being cancelled. Specifically in the context of the cancellation of funds, it is my view that Rule N+2, which forces Member States to use funds within two years of their being programmed must be seen as an incentive for the rapid use of funds, without, however, compromising the quality of the expenditure undertaken. With regard to the structural funds, I should also like to take this opportunity to draw the Commission’s attention to a problem of which it has already been made aware: the accession of the new Member States will have the statistical effect of reducing the European Union’s average GDP. Consequently, some regions’ levels will increase, with major risks of losing structural funds because they exceed the minimum levels that would entitle them to Community aid. I wish to emphasise that this, as in fact the Commissioner for enlargement himself, Günter Verheugen, has said, constitutes wealth on paper, but not in reality. Statistical indicators alone cannot justify terminating a cohesion policy for the current Member States. It is entirely in the European Union’s interest to see its current Member States enjoy high rates of growth, more employment and more opportunities.

Political group: PPE-DE