Mr President, first of all, the Group appreciates the documents which the Commission has put in front of us this morning. It is an historic and unique occasion. This is the first time in our history where we have had the opportunity to debate budget guidelines with policy documents at the same time. So now we can see how we begin to fit the priorities to the resources available. It is a pity that the Council is not with us because it too could have been part of this debate. I shall start with the broad document which has been produced by the Commission this morning. It sets out the outline of Union finances post-2006, rightly asking which project we want in terms, for example, of the competences that the Union will have, the limits to the geographical size of the Union, and a whole range of matters which set our budget debate in the right perspective. First I shall deal with the substance. It is right that we should have a range of ideas, with working groups set up by the Commission dealing with peace and prosperity and with questions of sustainable development. But in terms of the external side, the working group does not cover what the external dimension of the Union should be. As the President said about the current context, it would seem to be relevant that we should be thinking about substantive issues such as what the transatlantic partnership is going to be like in five years' time. We have asked for a report. It has not been produced. Indeed, we included in the budget for this year – 2003 – a request to have a document drawn up. When one asks the question, 'what should be the strategic priorities for the Union in the external field to 2007?' a deathly silence descends. Next, in terms of procedure, we should be a little careful that this Commission, although very active in looking forward to the next financial perspective, could bring us in theory to 2013, which not only covers the next Commission but also the Commission after that. To find ourselves in 2003 already discussing 2013 all seems rather far away. In this context there is one specific question I would like to ask the President of the Commission. The last phrase of this interesting document says that the duration of the next financial perspective could be brought into line with the five-year mandate of the Commission and of the European Parliament. Does that mean that the financial perspective would be to 2010 instead of 2013? The Group is in favour of the financial perspective covering a five-year period. I would like some clarity on that point. While talking about the Commission, Mr President, you mentioned the Convention. When we envisage a post-2006 Union with 500 million people or more, how will it be possible to run a Union with fewer Commissioners than we have today? There seems to be this refrain across the House at the moment that we should have 10 to 12 Commissioners. I do not see how we can run a Commission with only 10 to 12 Commissioners when most governments have at least 30 to 35 ministers to run their own countries. We are dealing here with the Union, a much bigger enterprise, so why not have 30 or 35 Commissioners? It seems to me quite normal that we should do so in the context of the Union of tomorrow. Secondly, the priorities of the budget for 2004 are well set out in the annual policy strategy document in terms of the three points that are made. Concerning sustainable growth, it makes sense to have better integration of environmental concerns. In addition, the Group is interested in the document concerning a better relationship with our neighbours in terms of security and stability. Above all, we are interested in the enlargement process and in making sure that we can fulfil our obligations and that Member States are fully integrated into the Union after 1 May 2004. We also share the view that the procedure for dealing with these policy strategies as they go through the committees and then through the budget process will be very important in order for us to be able to see that they are properly brought together. The questions we will be asking concern the significant rise of 780 in staffing numbers and, in particular, whether we need so many civil servants in the interpretation and translation departments. Finally, I come to my group's priorities during the budgetary process. We remain faithful to what has guided us in the last few budgets in terms of three particular elements which are important to us. Firstly, the completion of the reform of the institutions. This is where the Commission started out. We would like to ensure that this reform is completed by the end of our mandate. We still find irritations here. Yesterday mention was made of a document which was quoted partially in the press about the ongoing affair of the chief accountant who has been suspended. We would like to see that document. It is not so secret - most Members, including myself, have a copy. Why is there this fear, this wish to keep secret a document that is already half-known? We would like to see that document as soon as possible. Secondly, there is the question of the A-30 subsidy lines – a specific, but very sensitive point for Parliament. We would like to be clear on what the Commission will be proposing in terms of these subsidies for particular institutions. We have differing views across Parliament as to what should and should not be benchmarked and we need a common approach on that. My last comment pertains to a letter I have from the Secretary-General about follow-up to parliamentary acts. Here we find that at least 25% or 30% of reports that we ask for in this House are never produced. It states with regard to Parliament resolutions on COS documents that, of the 490 requests we made last year, the Commission has decided not to follow up 104 cases. We would like clarification as to why the Commission is not doing what Parliament requests and we certainly feel that there should be some reflection in the budgetary process if the Commission does not wish to do what Parliament has requested. I conclude by saying that this is a key moment in this budgetary process. The Commission has set out some useful lines of discussion and debate looking ahead post-2004. I hope that at the end of the process our Parliament will be able to reach the right conclusions in the interests of our citizens. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE