draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I am going to combine my time as rapporteur for the Committee on Industry and spokesperson for the Socialists on the other institutions. Firstly, I congratulate both the rapporteurs for successfully completing the mammoth budgetary task, and also the chairman of the committee, Mr Wynn, for getting through the votes in record time. Speaking on behalf of the Committee on Industry, I am disappointed with the outcomes in this budget because many of the priorities which we highlighted have been totally ignored. Let me single out three issues. The e-Europe initiative, launched with much fanfare at Lisbon, highlighted how it would increase the competitiveness of European industry; increase employment opportunities; and acknowledge that a knowledge society is indisputably a fundamental prerequisite for future economic prosperity. The extension of e-Europe to the applicant countries was again much heralded at Stockholm, but we are proposing not to extend this programme. I would like to remind everybody that the Council and Parliament confirmed e-Europe as a priority. By not supporting it we are undermining one of Europe's priority programmes and this will be to the detriment of the applicant countries. We need to ensure, as the rapporteur stated, that rhetoric is matched by action, that the EU citizen is not left to ponder. We have all these programmes; they are acclaimed; and then they seem to dissipate into thin air! This applies equally to my second point on Save. This has been a parliamentary priority for a number of years. Here we have a proposal to decrease the funding for the coming year. An environmentally-friendly European energy policy is at the top of most people's agendas and it is important that Europe leads the way in our Kyoto obligations. Therefore, to reduce programmes that promote sustainable energy consumption and impact on climate protection is extremely short-sighted. The third area in which the Committee on Industry will be retabling amendments is the decommissioning of weapons of mass destruction, and waste management. These are key to promoting a safer world. This is even more critical in the light of the recent atrocities of 11 September and to ensure that states have a proper strategy for dismantling chemical weapons so that there are no opportunities for these weapons to fall into the wrong hands. I would urge the rapporteur to rethink and support these amendments. Moving on to the other institutions, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Buitenweg, for the open and inclusive approach she adopted in arriving at the budget for the other institutions. This year, as she said, Heading 5 was under tremendous pressure for a number of reasons, including the preparation for the forthcoming enlargement. My group's efforts have been to continue to improve effectiveness, efficiency and transparency. As far as Parliament is concerned, these are not just hollow words, but words of substance. We have demonstrated our commitment to improving efficiency by staying under Parliament's 20% self-imposed ceiling, whilst absorbing the costs of preparations for enlargement of some EUR 18 million. However, this will be extremely difficult in the coming years. I would urge the Council to address this, so that the costs associated with the proposed enlargement are dealt with before we commence the budgetary procedure next year. Furthermore, I welcome the three-year enlargement plan that the Bureau has approved. At this stage, it is fairly sketchy and perhaps conservative – with a small ‘c’ – and not very radical. This is a shame because enlargement offers a real opportunity to make Parliament more dynamic in its operation. Some of the ideas outlined in this plan need to be developed further and we need to have a broader view of how things are done. Yesterday we heard in plenary that Parliament was unable to look at the money laundering proposals, which were agreed by the Council, for another three weeks because of the need for translation into 11 languages. This is extremely frustrating for everybody concerned, but what will this mean when we have 10 more languages? We must address this issue because it causes us fundamental problems in terms of the image of Parliament. It creates negative perceptions in the minds of European citizens, in that the European Parliament is seen as undynamic and unresponsive. Whilst we are on the subject of radical thinking, I would like to make some suggestions to the Council to improve their own efficiency. The under-utilisation of Parliament's buildings, for instance. We have buildings in Brussels which are almost empty for one week every month, and a building in Strasbourg which is hardly used and remains empty for three weeks a month. As the Council is consistently pointing out waste, here is an offer it cannot refuse. It could share and make full use of our buildings by holding its meetings in our buildings. I hope that will also benefit transparency in the way it works.

Political group: PSE