Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union is an endeavour – an endeavour for 500 million people on this continent, people in the EU's fifteen Member States, but also in the countries that want to join them in it. In contrast to what you have said, Mr Verheugen, it is not an effort that we have to make now and which we can no longer get out of, but an endeavour that we want to engage in because we want to create a future Europe that will be a community of solidarity in that future generations can work in peace with one another and with economic success on sound social foundations and under optimum conditions from the point of view of the environment. Such an endeavour must be worth something to us – not only in terms of what we ourselves, or politicians, put into it, not only in terms of drumming up people's support, but also in terms of figures in black and white, by which the project must be backed up; it means that we also, of course, have to give thought to how we can set out, including in financial terms, the individual steps that must be taken. That is not just a fear on the part of the public, but an important issue. As a householder myself, I, naturally, pay a great deal of attention to that. We have just heard that we will be able to cope with all that within the framework of the Perspective that was adopted in Berlin in 1999. All of what the Commission has presented will indeed last us until 2006. There are though, a few things in all these columns of figures that we need to discuss. Mr Verheugen referred to one of them himself. It is expecting too much of the new countries who will be added that they should be net contributors from the very outset. You cannot demand that countries whose gross domestic product is certified as being only 50% of that of the existing Member States, that they should start out as net contributors, for the precise reason that payments have to be effected directly, whilst repayments would be made only after a period of time had elapsed. In this financial perspective, we have described pre-accession aid packages that, in the first instance at any rate, worked on the assumption that new countries would be added with immediate effect from 2002. However, they have not been, but, spread over the years, the EUR 3 billion remain the same. If ten countries actually are added in 2004, the EUR 3 billion left over would be for two countries, Bulgaria and Romania. We will have to discuss what is actually meant by this and how it has to be implemented. Finally, we must think about how things are to go on after 2006, for you cannot simply say that this will be enough until 2006, and that we will just carry on after that date. You mentioned that the Structural Fund and the Agricultural Policy are in the ratio of 75:25. In our current Budget, the ration is 45:35, in favour, let it be noted, of the Agricultural Policy. We cannot make such massive changes to it that it will be as you have just said by that date. What this means is that we must discuss in precise terms how we go on from here. We will monitor that during the Budget very constructively, but with a highly critical eye. Mr President-in-Office, this morning you introduced this topic for us. With all respect for you and your office, I have a request to make. In the whole of your speech, you did not once mention Parliament as being a fellow-player in connection with these enlargement negotiations. We are legislators on the Budget every bit as much as the Council. It would be good if the way you conduct business were to take us into account. (Applause)

Political group: PSE