Mr President, I would like to start by giving my warmest congratulations to our two rapporteurs who have prepared our debates today on behalf of our committee. They have both done an excellent job for us and I know it is not easy to coordinate the position of others, having been a rapporteur myself. The context of our debate today is that we must use whatever opportunity we have in our budget to make sure that our European institutions are ready for the next stage of enlargement, both in terms of the institutions’ structures as well as improved policy management. I turn first to Parliament’s budget. Our rapporteur, Mr Ferber, was absolutely right that we should avoid placing posts in reserve in view of enlargement at this stage – the motto should be “more haste, less speed”. We in Parliament should coordinate with the other two institutions on what we should be doing in terms of enlargement for translation, interpretation, buildings and personnel and we should work out a joint plan between us. Our administration should be very prudent about the linguistic sector. We are after all thinking of enlargement for ten countries and not just five so we need to take a broader view. Secondly, I have a specific comment on category 4 and on our external policies. We know that our debates on the budget will address this on many occasions. But I would like to pick up on the comments of the Commissioner, Mrs Schreyer, who said that there are a number of instruments, a number of means by which we can come to terms with what is requested for this year, whether it be the flexibility instrument or indeed the negative reserve, where we could perhaps find the credits available for this year despite the problem of how to manage that in practice. We must remember that there are other means than necessarily revising the financial perspective. But of course my group will be at one in saying we must resolve this problem as soon as possible so as to give a long-term perspective of how the European Union’s aid is going to be used in MEDA and in CARDS. Let me turn to the overall strategy. This is the first budget debate for a considerable time without a substantive issue of dispute between Parliament and Commission. The framework agreement between our two institutions is now in operation even if it is disputed by a few of our Members. No discharge is outstanding, the reform process started by the last Commission under the strong urgings of our Parliament has been taken up in earnest by this Commission. Some progress has been made but there is a long way to go. It is this background which is crucial to my group’s approach to the 2001 budget. Having always been in the vanguard for change in the European institutions, for example with our support for never giving discharge for the 1996 budget, we are now absolutely determined that the reform process will not be lost as larger and more political issues begin to dominate our agenda in the run-up to the Nice summit. We focussed our efforts on three specific areas: better execution of the budget, more effective management of European policies and successful implementation of the reform package with particular reference to the new posts requested by the Commission. Before coming to that, a word on the position of the British Conservatives. To the surprise of many in my delegation, we established a core strategy unanimously at the beginning of September and the 400 amendments introduced by some of my colleagues came as somewhat of a surprise to many of us in the Budget Committee. While some had a legitimate purpose – to improve financial control of this House over the budget, many more had a destructive intent – not to save money, but to delete very worthy organisations such as the European Union Youth Orchestra. As it turns out, the moderate face of conservatism has for the most part prevailed over the more ideological and unacceptable one. There are some 30 amendments now retabled over and above those of our core strategy. I personally did not put my signature to them because one or two of them still go a little too far. Yet a healthy majority of the Conservative delegation wishes to play a constructive role in the European process – unlike one or two Members who can only think of deconstructing what is here. This brings me to our group’s strategy, because at the core of our belief is the wish to get value for money for the European citizen. We want to be sure that funds set aside for specific purposes in the budget will be spent and not accumulated year after year. This is why we have called for a strategy from the Commissioner to deal with the backlog of commitments, in particular in external policies, by the end of 2003. It is my hope that the Council will also be able to agree this strategy. It includes a limitation on the duration of commitments for which agreement will be required by the Council. Mr President of the Council, my group could put more payments on the line if we were certain that policies were being better managed. Secondly, we have established reserves in several parts of the budget where we think management of the available funds is weak, in particular setting aside large sums in external policy and for the final amount to be agreed between the two arms of the budgetary authority based on the idea of the performance reserve. We think this is a good idea, because if you see things are running well than that is where you put your credits. You do not put it on those programmes which are not running so effectively. Thirdly, and linked to these items, is the request for more posts. We understand that there is a need for more personnel, but what is of most concern to us is that we do not grant this request until the reform process of the institutions is well under way. It is difficult to see how more posts will solve the problem of management if there are still antiquated and complex procedures both in the Commission and Council for dealing with the many programmes. Mrs Schreyer came forward with an interesting suggestion which we should consider about the idea of a performance reserve in category 5, so that some posts would be available and we could then give more as the process improves. This is why we have called for a trialogue as soon as possible once this reading is complete, so that we can get down to the substance of the discussions. Greater efficiency within the Commission and more effective policy management over the life of the current financial perspective will give more confidence to the European citizens that their taxes are being put to good use and is the only way to ensure that the EU can achieve the wider goals of consolidation within its boundaries after the Nice summit and the gradual enlargement of the EU to the east. We are looking to rebuild people’s confidence in our institutions. Europe’s interests will not be served by having a weak Commission and an itinerant Parliament. On the contrary, we must work for a Parliament which campaigns for openness, efficiency and effective democratic control of the European institutions.

Political group: PPE-DE