Mr President, I would also like to start by thanking both rapporteurs for their hard work. It was not easy this year. The first lesson we can draw from this year’s budgetary discussion is that the Commission and the Council need to be careful about making statements in public regarding how much money is available for a certain cause without knowing how exactly it will be funded. This does not seem to bear repetition. I would like to move on to the budget itself. Firstly, I would like to focus on the agricultural budget itself. Category 1 A. I question the benefit of the exercise which we started three years ago, the so-called ad hoc procedure that we would refer to the most recent estimates for the following year and establish the budget for compulsory expenditure accordingly. I can only note that the Council has adhered to July’s budget. The Council’s perspective is, of course, unique, but I fail to comprehend why one should always adhere to what one has established in July. I do admit that some shifting has occurred between different budget headings. With regard to category 1 B, I appreciate that the Council has adopted Parliament’s amendment in order to achieve a quality policy for European agricultural products. At a time when consumers are increasingly anxious about the quality of food, I think that this is urgently needed and therefore meets with my appreciation. As for the other amendments in category 1 B, my group will support these. At a time of WTO negotiations, when everyone talks about a sound rural policy, it is positive that the European Union pursues an active policy in this field. Then I would like to comment on category 4 of the budget, including Kosovo. Firstly, I think that Parliament has shown its goodwill by finding the necessary funding for Timor and Turkey within the budget itself. This has clearly been down to the Parliament’s goodwill. Another noteworthy fact with regard to category 4 is that we have established that on 30 September of every year, a project surfaces which ties up about 10% of the money and then miraculously, two months later, around 100% of the money is allocated. How does this inventiveness come about so swiftly? Would it not be possible to space it out a bit more and, in this context, to take into account the Court of Auditors’ observation in this respect? The group can agree with the method of financing such as it has been regulated provisionally for Kosovo. It differs quite significantly from the original amounts specified by the Commission. We look forward to establishing a new budget as soon as possible, should this prove necessary. The objective of my group is not to dash the financial perspectives as such. We are more than willing to discuss any well-defined proposals, provided they are accompanied by sound arguments. I am also awaiting the compromise which will hopefully materialise tomorrow regarding payment appropriations. My group is divided on this matter. According to some Members, the payment appropriation level should definitely be lowered. If I have interpreted the noises in this respect correctly, then this will also happen. As far as we are concerned, Kosovo should not be the cause of an inter-institutional war. We should be able to solve this matter on the basis of arguments. Peace in the Balkans is worth a great deal to us.

Political group: ELDR