Mr President, I too should like to start by addressing the rapporteurs on behalf of my group. My compliments to Mrs Neena Gill, who has succeeded in placing the emphasis in the budget and in the resolution on value for money. I know how important it is for her and I share her vision in this. Likewise Mr Jan Mulder, who in the Netherlands would by no means be my natural ally, I should like to thank very much for the flexible cooperation we have had and the openness he has shown towards our proposals. Of course, I am prone to consider this a sign of openness and rationality, for the very reason that a great number of our proposals have actually been adopted. For this I thank him. I would however like to concentrate on a number of difficulties, because some do still remain. On Thursday we are voting on the budget. This is quite specifically about what we do and do not want to spend tax money on. But the PPE seems above all to want to play symbol politics, I really cannot interpret their proposal for 500 million for Iraq in any other way. The European Commission has investigated how much money the European Union can effectively set aside in Iraq. It was EUR 160 million for next year, not counting humanitarian aid. This does of course seem miserly compared with the billions from the United States. But Bush’s cheque also covers the troops on the spot and investments for companies. In its assessment for the absorption capacity the Commission expressly looked at the security situation in Iraq. All kinds of PPE pipe dreams are involved here. Because the more than tripling of the amount that the Commission is proposing must above all be a signal that the US has the situation under control, that things are really going fine in Iraq. But for the time being it is above all also a signal that the PPE is not really concerned about spending of tax money carefully. This big-heartedness stands out starkly against the PPE’s plans for Afghanistan. Because this is a country that is poorer than Iraq and with considerably fewer development opportunities. Here the PPE suddenly makes all kinds of new requirements for the spending of the money that are completely impractical. That you know. But the Afghans will be receiving as much as EUR 35 million less if the Commission fails to curb the drugs trade and to bring about a changeover to the cultivation of other crops. What is interesting is that the PPE, which usually harbours a somewhat natural suspicion of the European Commission, is now suddenly convinced that the European Commission can succeed where the United States has failed with the war on drugs in other countries. So here too we have an instance above all of symbol politics, but in this case with potentially dangerous consequences. The are also sometimes criticised for playing symbol politics. I am talking for instance about our amendment with regard to the financing of the structural funds to say explicitly that no European money may be spent on projects that are inconsistent with European directives such as the Habitat Directive or the Birds Directive. Superfluous, the Committee on Budgets decided almost unanimously, because it is logical that you do not use tax money to contravene laws – and that I find logical too. Were it not that I can give you a whole list of projects in which in some cases even the court has judged that they violate European directives. I will just mention a few of the projects that receive money from the structural funds: the dam over the Odelouca River in the Algarve in Portugal, the Alqueva dam in Portugal, the Rücken bridge project in Germany, the Ebro basin in Spain, the Boyne estuary in Northeastern Ireland. In the last five years 529 breaches of European environmental legislation have been recorded. Let us in any event ensure that this is not happening with European tax money! A moment ago, rapporteur Gill gave her support to my amendment for a few bicycles, so that parliamentarians can cover short distances cheaply and sustainably. This led to great hilarity, which to some extent is perfectly understandable. But of course you are not under any obligation to cycle. As I would refuse to throw away those EUR 50 a week, which come on top of our generous daily allowance, on a taxi ride, you do not have to get on your bike. But do give those who want to the chance to do so! I said yesterday in the Committee on Budgets that in return for the support of this House for this amendment I would be glad to take the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets on the back for a test ride. I should hereby like to repeat this promise in public.

Political group: Verts-ALE