Not being given the floor until after the Group has spoken still requires a psychological adjustment on my part, but I am afraid I will have to get used to it. Mr President, it is customary for us MEPs to initially react a little critically to the Council's absence from our plenary. However, during our previous budgetary debate, the Council made a huge effort to sit here for four hours solidly, so I do not think we will take offence on this occasion. I should, however, like to make a suggestion to the Council. This morning, a video conference conciliation meeting took place with the Council for the first time, and we managed to reach agreement on the Solidarity Fund live on screen. Next time there is a debate in the plenary that coincides with its own meetings, the Council could perhaps follow it on screen, and it could submit its comments virtually. In fact, the Dutch Government could easily have done the honours. Since the Dutch Government has resigned and parliament still has not adopted a position on enlargement, it has been agreed that the Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister will be present in Luxembourg over the next few days but will certainly not be saying anything. Since this is not a first for us in Parliament, the Dutch minister could have easily kept his mouth shut here in Strasbourg. But anyway, we are here to discuss the 2003 Budget. I should first of all like to thank my fellow MEPs, Mr Färm and Mr Stenmarck, for the work they have done, which has culminated in the first reading of the Budget that is now before us. In my view, they have acquitted themselves of their tasks as rapporteurs expertly, and they were, and still are, very approachable for all the groups. They are really not to blame, therefore, but I should nevertheless like to share with you the fact that I cannot muster any real enthusiasm for this budgetary debate or for the 2003 Budget that is before us. When I explain to people why I have chosen to sit on the Committee on Budgets, then I always use the argument that the EU's Budget covers all areas. As such, it pertains to structural funds, agriculture, environmental policy, research, social exclusion measures and the reconstruction of war-torn areas, and we are not talking peanuts, but about an amount in the region of EUR 100 billion. Of course, what I am saying is true, but it is only half the story. After all, the political battle we are fighting here today in the plenary is really not about shifting billions or about the overall picture, but about millions and about shifting the accents. This is due to both the rigid financial perspectives and the various pieces of legislation that have already been laid down and as a result of which our hands are tied. Take agricultural policy, for example. When my group suggests bringing up the export subsidies for discussion because many farmers in developing countries are seriously hampered in their economic potential, then the argument of administrative assurance is used. The export subsidies form part of existing policy, and we in Parliament cannot simply change this in a budgetary debate. Which is right, of course. It is, however, also important for us to send out a political signal. We are a political forum, after all. As it happens, no substantive arguments have been put forward against our proposal to scrap export subsidies. Instead, that three billion has simply been approved, as have the enormous amounts for the production of European tobacco, which we happen to think is extremely harmful to public health. My group is also very critical about the amounts set aside for the Trans-European Networks. After eight years, most of the projects are still in their infancy. Yet still nobody dares say in public that the EU subsidies may, to some extent, be money down the drain. We simply carry on undeterred, not always taking the best projects forward. The Member States themselves grant priority to national projects, while the value-added of European funding is surely the fact that they must be cross-border projects. The Commission is now having to come up with all kinds of emergency measures to support the real cross-border projects, although this is, of course, a somewhat bizarre situation. Similarly, with regards to structural funding, Member States pursue double and often conflicting priorities, which partly explain the enormous delays in implementation. On the one hand, they are all out for getting as much out of the Brussels money coffers as possible, but at the same time they struggle to find national co-financing because those projects are not always a national priority. My conclusion is therefore that the Member States feel less responsible for European money or for the fact that it should be spent carefully and fairly, than they do for national funds. This is quite remarkable when you think that it is all money originating from the same tax payer. Another area of doubt concerning correct spending is of a wholly different nature. I hope that Parliament will support me in this. It concerns the funding for Kedo. We touched upon this briefly last night. The European taxpayer is financing a nuclear energy plant in North Korea. My group is opposed to this as a matter of principle in any case, because we prefer to support sustainable energy. But anyway, this is the way things are, and I know that a majority in Parliament is in favour of it. However, it now turns out that North Korea is probably also developing nuclear weapons. It is clear to me that we should examine this carefully, and it also seems to make sense to me to place this money in the reserve and not to release it until we have clarity about the programmes pertaining to this plant. I should also like to ask the European Commissioner for her opinion and whether she is already intending to place this money in the reserve at second reading. These are all examples of money that is being spent but against which I would place question marks as to their judiciousness. Then there is also a category of credits which I think should be spent, or even more should be spent. One such example is enlargement. There is a fine Dutch expression that says ‘goedkoop is duurkoop’ [you get what you pay for], and I am leaving it up to the interpreters to find a sound translation for this. I am not in favour of wasting money, but I do believe in delivering on our promises and seizing historical opportunities. The situation happens to be different from the one we anticipated in 1999 when the financial perspectives were laid down in Berlin. Not six, but probably ten countries, will be joining, and not in 2002, but in 2004. The financial plan should therefore be adjusted accordingly. However, because of their 'accountant' attitude, the net payers are not interested. My group will in any event be endorsing the amendments which will enable this to be adjusted, as I am convinced that we will ultimately be paying a hefty price. The situation in category four has also changed. Regarding the reconstruction of the Balkans and Afghanistan, it has often been said that it is impossible to deliver on all promises in category four, unless cutbacks are made in various other priorities. For example, a downward adjustment was made to the multiannual programme for the other western Balkan countries due to the situation in post-Milosevic Serbia. What will we do if peace is established in the Middle East? What programmes will we be offering then? I have already listed the areas where I am quite happy to cut back by a few billion, but I should like to see a few million added here. Another area where an extra few million would not go amiss is category five, administrative expenditure. It is no secret that I was unhappy with the deal concluded during July’s conciliation. According to this deal, Parliament and the Council look after each other’s needs, and it was agreed that the Commission would be served via a frontloading operation. This worked out well. The 500 additional positions for enlargement will probably be created. However, the political signal is rather unpleasant, in my view. The Commission is not a closing entry; it is necessary for a smooth enlargement process. Ironically, the people who are most critical of enlargement and of the capacity of the candidate countries to implement the acquis communautaire are often the very people who refuse to allow the Commission to have sufficient staffing levels to implement and monitor the implementation of the acquis communautaire. In my opinion, the frontloading method is not particularly attractive, nor terribly transparent, as Mr Walter has already stated. Despite this, I should like to extend warm congratulations to the rapporteurs on the result, because in the final analysis, it is the result that counts.

Political group: GUE-NGL