Mr President, the own resources system is the hub of European policy; it directly affects 370 million citizens with national and economic sensibilities of very different types. The rapporteur applies certain questionable criteria, for example she accuses the Commission of having limited itself to applying Council guidelines. We must remind the rapporteur that that was the task which the Council entrusted to the Commission: to transform the political equilibrium of the fifteen into a concrete and viable proposal. We agree with the rapporteur’s request for a more transparent and simpler system, which is intelligible to all the citizens of Europe. We also agree that there is a need to take account of the citizen’s fiscal capacity and a need to seek new sources of income. The current system still contains regressive elements which should be modified. We believe, however, that this is neither the time nor the place to impose expiry dates on the British rebate and the reductions granted to certain countries in the funding of the said rebate, especially when these proposed decisions have still not been approved in the various national Parliaments. It seems to us inappropriate to launch into this debate at the moment. The benefits of belonging to the European Union cannot only be measured in budgetary terms, since there is the possibility that imbalances will be created. The Berlin agreements are a combination of the total level and the composition of spending, political reforms and the own resources system. The said combination must guarantee equity within a budgetary framework which includes enlargement. It is for this reason that it seems to us so inadvisable to modify the Berlin decision in the absence of a solid basis. Neither do we share your apprehensions concerning the application of the A(95). It is an accounting system which allows for a broader base for GDP resources and, consequently, greater financial resources, without surpassing the relative index expressly laid down in the Berlin agreements and in the interinstitutional agreement. Your fears concerning the modification of the 1.27% can simply be corrected by a downward adjustment of the ceiling on the said resources. It is therefore an unnecessary amendment. Neither do we consider the amendments on the traditional own resources to be necessary. The 25% which the Member States are going to retain for collection expenses will allow for an administrative improvement in customs efficiency and the fight against fraud, which is an aspect that is frequently pointed out by the Court of Auditors. We also reject the idea of rewarding success in collection since this is incompatible with the principle of equity. Finally we cannot accept the amendments which modify the timescale for the entry into force of the decision on own resources. Neither the political reality of the Union, nor the needs of enlargement, and much less the complexity of implementing a system which, in 1997 alone, cost EUR 82,469 million, make it advisable for Parliament to vote for changes to the said timescale. Finally, we appreciate the continued efforts of the rapporteur, at least over the last year, in bringing together positions and putting forward a common position on behalf of this Parliament. There are already broad areas of consensus on the basis of which we can contribute to improving the funding of the Union, but the result of the vote in the Committee on Budgets shows that there are some ideas on which we are far from reaching a consensus. For many of us, our final vote will depend on the result of the voting on various amendments, but, in its current wording, we prefer the Commission’s text.

Political group: PPE-DE