Mr President, the annual budgetary procedure has passed off unusually smoothly. It is the first time in many years that it has not, for example, been necessary for us to hold a meeting of the Committee on Budgets during this last part-session in Strasbourg in order to deal with a whole lot of sticking points. The reason, of course, is that all the parties, no doubt partly because they all know how important it is for us to be able to demonstrate agreement prior to enlargement, have contributed to a businesslike and constructive process. I want to extend my thanks for the fact that this has happened, especially to the Danish Presidency and the Finance Minister, Mr Pedersen, whom I hope we shall get to see in this House on Thursday. He has helped guide the members of the Council to a very constructive settlement. I also wish to extend my thanks to the Commission and Mrs Schreyer, to my co-rapporteurs, Mr Stenmarck and Mr Colom I Naval, and to the budget rapporteurs from the other committees who have contributed very constructively to this process. Last but not least, I wish to thank my colleagues in the Committee on Budgets, the committee’s splendid secretariat and, especially, its splendid chairman, Mr Wynn, who has supported the work throughout. When this process began just over a year ago, one of my objectives was to develop Parliament’s own procedures, and I think we have made some progress. We have established a dialogue concerning objectives and guidelines at an early stage. We have worked closely with the other specialised committees in order to get them actively involved in the budgetary process. We have developed the new budgetary debate in September, something which it will certainly be possible to develop further next year. These are things that have worked well. Unfortunately, I also have to sound a critical note, not about our work on the budget but about the EU’s budgetary system. In my opinion, the problem is the long-term budget plan and the interinstitutional agreement that set sector-by-sector budget ceilings for seven years in a row. That is an entirely unreasonable model. Such long-term and detailed planning is not possible in a modern budgetary system. It is reminiscent, rather, of the Soviet Union. Certainly, I accept budgetary discipline. I am a keen adherent of budget ceilings, but that model is far too rigid. As long as we are governed by it, we shall all constantly be looking for ways of escaping from the straitjacket of the financial perspective. Since the advent of the budget plan in 1999, we have used the flexibility mechanism each year to a greater or lesser extent. We have also developed new, ever more creative methods of achieving flexibility. We have an emergency reserve of which we make ever more extensive use. We have added the new solidarity fund, which is also a flexibility instrument. This year, we ourselves have introduced the systematic use of what is termed frontloading, whereby we try to find unutilised resources in the current year’s budget in order to bring forward expenditure for next year and in that way give ourselves room for manoeuvre. This creativity has been of great help, but it is not especially open or transparent. There is no sound long-term budgetary methodology. I would therefore call upon our colleagues in the Convention really to give some thought as to how, in future treaties, we can increase Parliament’s influence over the budget as a whole and, at the same time, create in the long term a less rigid model for budget ceilings which is less hostile to development. I am also critical of the way in which the budget has been implemented, even though we can see improvements here and there, for example when it comes to aid policy. It is of course unreasonable that, in 2001, we should have received back 15% of the Member States’ contributions to the EU because we were unable to implement what we had decided in the budget. If the pace of implementation continues to be slow, there will be a risk in future years of a situation arising in which regions that have received promises of aid and candidate countries that have been given generous promises of pre-accession aid will, quite justifiably, protest when the promises are not fulfilled. If, however, the pace of implementation is improved and if, at a time when enlargement is making major new claims upon our resources, we are to honour the huge amount of payments that have been accumulating ahead of us, we shall instead be in danger, in future years, of encountering major problems in keeping to the budget. In spite of these deficiencies, I think we have a lot to be satisfied with. Allow me to mention just a few of the most important areas including, of course, enlargement. By means of the developed frontloading model, we have been able to supply the Commission with those resources it needs, for example for the 500 new jobs required for enlargement. I am certain that my fellow MEP, Mr Stenmarck, will talk more about this as it relates to the budgets for Parliament and the other institutions. Enlargement has, however, also made its mark on other areas. The major new resources in terms of information will have bearing upon enlargement. A range of different bodies receiving aid from the EU are now investing those resources in integrating the new countries. We are concerned here with the social dialogue, youth cooperation, the combined fight against crime etc. We have also launched a new pilot project for cooperation between small companies and involving both the candidate countries and the countries along the EU’s new external border – Russia, the Balkan countries, North Africa etc. I believe that, of all that we have achieved, this is the most important. Allow me also to mention the EU’s efforts in the fight against poverty and disease in the developing countries. Even if I personally am disappointed that we have not brought about clearer changes in agricultural policy, that being probably the most important thing we could have done in the fight against poverty, I am nonetheless pleased that we can make other sound contributions. I know that there is some criticism of the fact that we have reduced the appropriations to food aid and humanitarian aid. We have, however, done this partly in order to be able to bring forward aid to the famine-hit Horn of Africa, and partly in order to be able to free up resources for Afghanistan next year. That has been done only on condition that we and the Council promise to supply the extra resources that may be required for these purposes next year. We have also been criticised for the way in which we deal with the EU’s contribution to the Global Health Fund. It is criticism that I consider to be unfair. We have prevailed upon the Council to more than double the amount it proposed in its first reading, from EUR 20 million to EUR 42 million. We have also got the Council to promise to try to produce a corresponding sum from the European Development Fund. We have, finally, a joint promise in any case to contribute those resources that are required if the EU is to be able to retain its place in the management of the fund. More than that I do not in actual fact think it is reasonable to demand. Finally, we have also achieved a very constructive settlement concerning Parliament’s future role in foreign and security policy, and that is something I believe we are all satisfied with. Ladies and gentlemen, this budget will not be an historic one because of any dramatic conflicts or major new revolutionary budget initiatives. It will, however, be historic because it is the last budget with the old budgetary terminology. Next year, we shall all be forced to teach ourselves activity-based budgeting. It will also be historic because it is the last budget relating to an EU with 15 Member States. I am, above all, very pleased that we have, with such broad political agreement, in actual fact come up with those solutions required in order to prepare for enlargement. That, I believe, is the greatest success of this year. (Applause)

Political group: PSE