Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the biggest problem with the budget is the outstanding RAL appropriations. The problem is so huge that it cannot be seen. It is good that an attempt is being made to reduce the scale of the RAL problem. As a ‘sunset clause’ is being introduced to achieve this the Commission’s inefficiency might fade from view as a result. Today, however, that inefficiency is visible in the growth of RALs, as certain other groups have remarked here. Our group agrees that enlargement should become the budget’s main area of focus. In that connection we must ensure that the European Union is able to function in all its official languages right from the outset. We call on the Commission to reject any proposals that state that some languages should be accorded a position that is inferior to others with regard to interpreting. If an interpreting facility cannot exist for all languages, let us draw lots to see which ones are not to enjoy that facility. In July’s conciliation process the Council promised to produce a legal basis for the early retirement of twenty or thirty officials on temporary contracts employed by Parliament’s political groups. In exchange it obtained provisional budgetary unity. It got a very good deal. The spirit of budgetary unity allows certain Member States to obtain financial aid from the EU in exchange for scrapping their fishing fleets. This has been agreed and we do not oppose it. However, losses cannot be overcompensated for, and, for that reason, many members of our group feel it is important that the new fisheries programme proposed by the Commission be approved. Nevertheless, there are forces at work to block it, in the same way as it is being reduced to what is just a new agricultural programme under the direction of a certain large Member State. Some of our group wish the Commission every success in its reform of the fisheries and agricultural programmes, and some do not. Opinions differ in our group on the question of whether it is necessary to support European-wide political parties out of the EU budget. As there is no legal basis for supporting Europarties this way, we are proposing, as a technicality in the budget, that we should make a p.m. entry under the corresponding budget heading. It should not be proposed that money be given away when it is not legal to do so. I would like to say this to the President-in-Office of the Council: do please correct the regulations pertaining to the Members of the European Parliament so that a legal basis is achieved in respect of this issue too. We are pleased, in the main, that the Commission has proposed reducing the amount spent on propaganda in the wake of the Prince programme. The Commission’s actions are evidently worse for the EU with propaganda than without it in terms of legitimacy. We on the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy were disappointed with the course of action the Council took when it made its funding decisions in respect of the Sixth Framework Programme for science and research. The programme was agreed upon without any formal settlement. We hope that the traditionally excellent spirit of cooperation that exists between Parliament and the Council can continue with regard to this issue also and that the Council will restore matters to what was originally agreed.

Political group: GUE-NGL