Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, I wish to emphasise that the political and economic advantages of enlargement will of course far outweigh the potential costs to the Budget, but, despite this, there is still a need to give budget policy a framework that is reliable in the medium and long term and capable of gaining the support of a majority on both sides. We are then, to take one example, talking in terms of a Budget framework with some EUR 15 billion of expenditure in 2006, but, on the other hand – as we so often forget – we will have our own resources, amounting to some EUR 5 billion, which the new Member States will already have contributed to the European Union's Budget. This means that it is important to again clarify the positions on questions of principle relating to the adjustment of the new Financial Perspective, which were voted on in plenary in June. Since then, the Council, at its Brussels Summit, has also adopted parts of this position taken by Parliament, examples being the principle of progressive integration for direct payments to agriculture, the clarification that, after enlargement, none of the new Member States should become net contributors, and a ruling intended to prevent a country from being in a worse financial position after accession than it was immediately before it. It is very important to me that the necessary adjustment of the Financial Perspective is to be made on the basis of Article 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement and on the proposal of the Commission jointly – that is what it says – jointly with the Council and Parliament and by the appropriate majorities. For example, Mr President-in-Office, I would expect it to be made clear in the Budget conciliation that Parliament is continually to be supplied with comprehensive information on the progress of the negotiations, and I would expect a trialogue on the subject to achieve agreement on how we are to move the Financial Perspective's adjustment procedure forward over the coming months. The many issues still open include such questions as: how, for example, are we to understand the formulation by the Berlin European Council, in item 12 of its Final Conclusions, which expressly states that a clear distinction is to be drawn between the new Member States and the expenditure by the old EU? Will this statement from Berlin continue to stand or will every heading in the post-enlargement Budget be common to all of us? That has to be clarified. If the accession date is to be 1 May 2003, will there be a supplementary Budget? Does it even make sense to spend, as it were, four months organising pre-accession programmes, leaving them to run their course, and – whether it be in agriculture, structural policy or internal policy – treat the new members as such only after eight months have elapsed? It is also, I believe, in issues concerning the new neighbours and partnerships that there has to be a very careful examination of which financial adjustments have to be carried out in such areas as heading 4, which deals with foreign policy. This affects both Turkey and other neighbours and new partners, with whom we will have to talk about quite specific new partnerships.

Political group: PPE-DE