Mr President, for the first time in many years, it looks as if this Parliament will once again be granting discharge to the Commission by 30 April, as prescribed. This is to be welcomed, in my view, and this is why I should like to congratulate Mr McCartin – and the other rapporteurs too, in fact. As far as the Commission’s attitude is concerned, I have the impression that the Commission has made every effort to accommodate the many questions asked by Parliament within a very short space of time. What is most striking about this budget is that once again there is no positive statement of assurance. And this is the first budget for which the new Commission is responsible. We, the , as well as others, have said time and again that we need indicators to establish whether the situation has improved or not. If we keep hearing every year that there is no positive statement of assurance, how should we explain this to the public if we subsequently keep on granting discharge? I should once again like to draw the Commission’s attention to this problem, and ask the Commission, if the Court of Auditors refuses to develop an indicator, which is what now seems to be the case, to come up with an indicator of its own which, for example, highlights the fact that a margin of error prevails in a Directorate-General, the extent of this margin, and the extent of this in other sectors. The Court of Auditors can then verify subsequently whether the technique is sound. This will give Parliament a tool to assess whether or not a situation is improving. This seems to me to be a priority for the year to come. Another point already mentioned by Mrs Jöns is that we have noticed a steady increase in the number of agencies. Virtually every agency has its own financial rules accompanied by a complex discharge procedure. This is difficult for the many agencies. Would it not be possible for the Commission to develop a uniform model for all the agencies? This too would simplify inspection by Parliament. Another point concerns the clearance of accounts. We, as the , have tabled an amendment which extends the period which la s before it becomes final from 24 to 36 months. This allows us as Parliament to challenge the decisions by the Commission for a slightly longer period. And in our view, it is perhaps necessary to increase the financial corrections once again. The maximum is 100%, but what is stopping us from applying more gradations, which would provide us with another way of measuring upward or downward trends? In addition, we take the view that the computerisation of customs offices in Europe should be prioritised, especially in the new countries. What specific action is the Commission taking to reinforce Europe’s future external borders, and what can we as Parliament do to improve the situation on this score? Finally, I should like to bring up a topic which has already been mentioned by various speakers, namely the European Union’s new foreign and security policy. Indeed, it looks as if an entirely new policy is being developed which could well escape Parliament’s attention. This is unjustified in the opinion of the . We think that an agreement must be concluded between the Commission, Parliament and the Council about a new interinstitutional accord, thus allowing the expenses made by the Council in this respect to be better monitored.

Political group: ELDR