Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as someone who is involved with setting the Budget, and people in that position sometimes have the feeling that they have to start by saying very clearly that we, too, who are involved with the financial side of enlargement, are in complete support of that enlargement. We know it is not only a question of money; it goes far beyond that. It is a question of peace on this continent, a question of standards, a question of security for the people who live all over this continent. If we are to meet a challenge as great as the one before us, we must not only have the political will, but we must also ensure that the policies we make are backed by those for whom we make them, namely the people. That means they must have confidence, and confidence exists when they have the feeling that things are also being handled in a proper and orderly way when it comes to funding these issues. In that connection we must say that this enlargement will demand something of everyone. Those who dream of advancing without any difficulties through landscapes in bloom fail to understand the matter. We want to subject the financing of enlargement to very precise tests, which means that we are not issuing any blank cheques for the acceding countries, but we do not want to set up any hurdles either. We very much welcome what the Commission has proposed. In the matter of the structural funds, one of the areas where most expenditure is made, we are pleased that it has followed the approach taken by Parliament and intends to adopt a Regulation similar to what we are doing with the cohesion fund in order to make it easier for the candidate countries to absorb the funds. But we also say very clearly at this point that this model is a model for transition. We will not be creating a cohesion fund here that, in the future, will give rise to another model or to another fund that will then never run out but, insofar as it is possible to move over to the normal structural fund, that is what we shall have to do. In the area of agricultural aids we support the Commission. We agree that the rural areas should be seen as targeted units. We also believe that direct aids are now part of agricultural incomes and that up until 2006 there is a simple model that can be funded, is clear and that we can also support. For the time after that we shall have to give thought to how it is to look. There are no blank cheques today, because we know the financial framework only up to 2006. At this point we can guarantee full support. After that, it will be necessary to think again. But that also demands something of those conducting the negotiations. We will give them very critical but constructive support. We take a similar position on foreign policy. Anyone looking at future developments in external aid must count on things happening that cannot be foreseen today. As an example I will simply mention Kaliningrad. Here we shall of course also be subjecting the European Union’s external aids to very critical scrutiny, but we are very much convinced that this is possible and that, here, too, we will be able to make progress accordingly. Citizens can be assured that between now and 2006 there will be no discernible problems. For the time after that there will have to be proper negotiations. All who sit round the table carry a heavy responsibility. As a Parliament we will have a part in deciding how things will move forward, and we will be looking at that very closely. But we will also be following these questions very positively because we believe that European Union enlargement is the task of the future to which we must apply ourselves, where everyone must know where we are heading, where we must first talk about how much we are prepared to pay, but we will always take a constructive and positive attitude, as we have up until now.

Political group: PSE