Madam President, firstly, I would like to thank Commissioner Kinnock for informing us of the action that is to be taken and of the debate due to take place in February. The European Union is in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, there is a great deal of support for the “people’s Europe”, food, air quality and so on, and a variety of issues must be tackled at a European level. The citizens support this and consider it to be important, but on the other hand, they do not understand how the workings of the European institutions actually function. The low turnout at the elections reflects this lack of understanding. It will undoubtedly be possible to tackle some of the problems on the basis of the report of the Committee of Wise Men. To some extent, and others have made this point here, it is also something that we as a Parliament must address ourselves. If there were less of an ivory tower mentality in the hemicycles and more interaction with ordinary citizens; if more time was spent amongst them; if there were not so many debates between experts and institutional specialists and institutional debates were to take place rather as a result of tackling actual problems, then Europe would draw much closer to its citizens. It is not just the Commission and the institutions that are deserving of criticism, for we too have a difficult task ahead of us. When the debate with the Commission takes place in February, we will also need to hold a debate ourselves. Madam President, as regards the second report which we now have before us, issues such as subsidiarity, the delegation of competencies, the importance of combating fraud using independent agencies, are the key concepts. They are underpinned by a vision. Less centralised hierarchical control over social and economic affairs, with more delegation to States and to social organisations would create space and consequently greater clarity in job demarcation. That too demands a certain vision. A kind of vision that certainly was not always of central importance in this Chamber. I am very curious as to whether that is the path that will be chosen in February. If that path is chosen, then that will mean creating a different kind of culture. In Mr Kinnock’s words, a different culture for officialdom, getting away from the island structure that we have now, a more inviting work atmosphere, entailing a different remuneration structure. My personal view, and I say this without hesitation, is that the expatriation allowance should be abolished too, for no one has to feel all that much of an expatriate in Brussels. We support the idea of a European Prosecution Office and its being independent. It could be seen as a trial run prior to establishing a European Public Ministry in the longer term. It would mean a more clear-cut relationship with Parliament and effective supervision. It would not be under the supervision of the President of the Commission, but rather there would be a more clear-cut relationship with this Parliament. Madam President, might I also make a suggestion as regards the events referred to by Mr Kinnock which are to take place in February? Why, if there are so many important issues at stake in our Member States, do we not ask them to initiate debate in the regions and local councils on fund spending and end-results, enabling a public debate to take place in these countries, which will feed into our work and ensure that these two issues are not separated? I am in favour of having a European-wide national day of monitoring for fund end-results. Lastly, Madam President, on the subject of the whistle-blowers, I hope that we will soon know when the matter is to be settled and I support everything that has been said in this Chamber about Mr Van Buitenen.

Political group: PSE