Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, following on from what Mr Harbour has just said, I will now very briefly talk about technical problems of concern to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I would nonetheless like to tell you, Commissioner, that I am delighted with the advances that have been made in the area of cooperation since our last meeting in a plenary session. In fact I, in addition to many other Members, regret that the Commission should make proposals and generate information, but does not really consult the other institutions, the trade union organisations or the staff committees of these institutions. Now, since February, my prayers have been answered, because this procedure, thankfully, has been given a great deal of attention and has been widely listened to by the institutions you are currently consulting. I know that you will notice that a wide consensus has been reached on many proposals. On this subject, I would like to say something quite different to my colleague Mr Harbour. It turns out that there are still two delicate points for us to consider in these negotiations. To be precise, the structure of careers, that is to say linearity, or else the status quo, and also the pensions system. If, recently, I understood you correctly, it appears that you are currently searching for a compromise between these two career systems. It is my personal wish that a realistic and modern proposal will be found through your negotiations. I would also remind you that as far as pensions are concerned, even if very often it is thought that a pensions system by pre-funding is the way forward, there are many of us, the trade unionists, employees and others, who think that the current system of distribution can be upheld or in any case combined. I shall now come back to budgetary concerns relating to the reform. Firstly, and as a matter of precaution, I have to remind you that the implementation of a system for early retirement has not received Parliament’s endorsement other than upon the specific condition of budgetary neutrality, wherever it may be implemented. In relation to the entirety of the reform, we would therefore wait for, as soon as is possible, a complete document stating the budgetary aspect of the current negotiations. It is therefore very important that the Committee on Budgets should have better knowledge of your current predictions on the global cost of reform. In fact, in March we heard talk of EUR 500 million. Today, EUR 600 million is stated. In addition, further measures proposed and the demands of other institutions have put a large strain on the funds required for the balance of category 5, hence our concern. Another element of doubt that makes the 2002 budgetary decision more complex is Council’s failure to respond to the 2001 letter of Amendment No 1 on the implementation of early retirement schemes. If the Council still insists on its proposal to raise the age for early retirement, we have a question: what will be the consequences for your draft, and, more importantly, do you think that it would be wise to continue under these conditions? We do not currently have a document that allows Parliament to measure the consequences of these positions. Although we are very attached to the idea of reform, we cannot make blind decisions on choices that are so technically, humanely and financially important. To decide in this way would be like signing a blank cheque to the Commission, which is not in our nature. To this day, we can only remark that the preliminary draft budget put forward by the Commission exceeds the category 5 ceilings of 5 million and that Council is now putting forward a draft budget where these ceilings are most certainly respected, with a margin of 58 million, but where all the policies of the different institutions would not, as a result of this, be respected. The solution: should category 5 support the two largest projects – enlargement and the cost of reform – on its own? Should we continue these efforts solely on reform or also on enlargement? In any case, we need a response. Would it not be possible to extend reform over a longer period? On the eve of voting on the draft budget, we are aware that the responses you provide clearly depend on so many pieces of the same puzzle, but it is very important that you clarify matters in order for us to make a decision.

Political group: PSE