Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from the Committee on Budgets' point of view, we want to send out two signals to the Council, the Commission, the European public and the accession countries today. Firstly, we want to make clear our desire to put the budgetary conditions in place so that enlargement can go ahead in 2004, involving up to ten candidate countries. Secondly, we want to make it very clear to the Commission and the Council that according to Paragraph 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement and on the basis of Article 272, the adjustment of the financial perspective is undertaken on the proposal of the Commission together with Parliament and Council, namely with a qualified majority in the Council and, in Parliament, a majority of its Members and three-fifths of the votes cast. Let me add that everyone involved should work towards ensuring that the outcome is capable of securing a majority in both the current EU and the new Member States. This is a major challenge and obligation for us. The original financial perspective contains an indicative financial framework, initially for six new countries from 2002. However, this framework should serve as a basis for the negotiations, so that the decisions taken in Berlin, Agenda 2000 and the acquis communautaire might be adhered to. Based on the plenary's decisions of September 2001, we greatly welcome the approach involving progressive integration in agricultural and structural policy, simply taking account of the pre-accession experience, budget discipline, and WTO rules, but also the candidate countries' own domestic situations. We also welcome the fact that the agricultural subsidies available to the new Member States are to be increased to reach the level of 100% of direct aid by 2013. It is clear that if necessary, we must start discussing the European Union's development after 2006 today. Will the financial perspective be extended or revised? What will happen in agricultural policy and the structure of direct payments, rural policy, and society's new demands regarding international competitiveness and the WTO? Then there is the issue of introducing a comprehensive reform of the structural fund mechanisms due to the experience of absorption, the simplification of procedures, greater consideration of local conditions – all this is necessary. I would like to take up what the Presidency has said: let us not overburden the accession negotiations, and let us stop and think for a moment. Taking decisions today for the period after 2006 also means anticipating the recommendations of the Convention on the future of the European Union. In my view, this is unacceptable. The simplified model of direct payments in agriculture, and the concept of special financing arrangements via a Fund which is defined and managed separately from the Cohesion Fund, offering very favourable conditions to the new Member States, is the right approach. However, let me add this: alongside improved utilisation of structural fund resources in the accession countries, the possibility of phasing out the special conditions must also be discussed. In particular, we wish to endorse the comments made by Mr Verheugen in connection with aid to the new Member States, especially as regards improving administrative capacities and the closure of nuclear power stations, with specific closure criteria being a precondition for this aid. New Member States will also entail new external borders. This means new partners on the EU's external borders, which will raise new issues concerning cross-border cooperation and the European Union's foreign policy. It has also implications for heading 4 of the budget, and we therefore wish to be consulted on these issues at an early stage. The provision of budgetary compensation to the accession countries through a lump sum on the expenditure side of the budget, which should be temporary and degressive, in order to prevent any new Member State being a net contributor during the first years, is something which we would certainly support. Naturally, the fact that the administrative costs may reach the upper limit stated in the financial perspective is a cause for concern, and we will have to look at whether we are in a position to abide by this limit by streamlining work processes and competences or whether we have to accept what the Commission has defined as additional costs of some EUR 500-600 million in this area during the first years. Finally, I should like to mention one very important point. If there are any net contributors who believe that we should already be setting a framework for the period after 2006 in all policy areas, I should like to remind them that a new financial perspective, whatever form it might take, must ultimately be decided on the basis of unanimity. This makes it clear that in the future, too, based on the Commission's proposals for the enlargement process, we have the opportunity to maintain budget discipline while having a responsibility to achieve a balance in this negotiating process and find a solution which is in the interests of the current Member States but also takes account of the equally justified interests of the accession countries. Let us all get to work to achieve this outcome. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE