Madam President, we have indeed been set challenges by our two rapporteurs, but I would like to focus on three issues in particular: enlargement, Commission reform and, last but not least, Iraq. I fully accept, as does my Group, that the major goal for this budget as set out by Mr Mulder is enlargement. From the outset we wanted to ensure that a full budget will be available for the new Member States, and that the commitments will be effectively implemented. We still realise, however, there will be many difficulties ahead as regards the day-to-day running of an EU with 25 Member States, particularly where translation and interpretation are concerned. This leads me to reform. In my Group we believe that as far as the reform of the Commission is concerned, we really need to make sure that there are signs that something has changed since 1999. We have therefore put the 272 posts in reserve. One of our main conditions is that an assessment be carried out of the changes that have occurred and the action that still needs to be taken. The Eurostat affair and the issues concerning whistleblowers and the position of OLAF show that the Commission is slow to tackle things. We would like to see the latter issue raised as a separate discussion on the basis of an oral question in the November part-session in Strasbourg. As other speakers have highlighted in this afternoon's debate, it seems to our Group that Iraq is the major issue for our budget in 2004. I thank those who have had the courage to speak in favour of our amendment. There are three reasons for this: first, for us, this is a major political signal to the outside world that Europe is prepared to play a significant role in humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Although Iraq is different from Afghanistan, we have given EUR 1 billion to Afghanistan over a five-year period, and, if we take into account the Commission proposal, we have given EUR 200 million to Iraq over an indefinite period. However, I read in The Guardian – presumably one of Mr Wynn's favourite newspapers – that the Japanese Government has pledged USD 5 billion over several years for Iraq's reconstruction in contrast to our EUR 200 million. Second, in the light of last week's unanimous vote in the UN and The Guardian's revelation that the US has agreed to allow a joint UN Development Programme/World Bank agency to administer the funds, it is now easier for us in Europe to think of allocating more funds for Iraq's reconstruction. It should be recognised, Mr Walter, that certain countries will be less enthusiastic because of their position on the war, but I understand that the page has turned, and that those who are forward-looking in our Parliament – and indeed those who support America in its hour of need – will be supporting the Group's amendment. Lastly, we believe that this particular amendment is not incompatible with financing other areas, and will not affect existing funding – the amendment itself mentions this. Mr Wynn, you commented that the Commission proposal is not based on assessments, it is based on availability. We believe that the monies will be needed for 2004. You also mentioned that this is a first reading. We should actually be able to vote our amendment quite within the bounds of the financial perspective and should our amendment fall, we as a Group will, of course, reserve our right to consider whether the Commission's proposal is the right one. Therefore, in this budget we want to prepare the Union for enlargement, we want to make sure that reforms of the institutions are carried out, but above all we want a Europe which is going to play its role in the world. That is why we ask the House to support our amendment earmarking EUR 500 million for Iraq.

Political group: PPE-DE