Mr President, we welcome this proposal by the Commission to improve the system of control and I should like to thank Mr Casaca for his report. This is a very technical subject and indeed to comprehend it one needs an understanding of almost all the details of the entire common agricultural policy. Mr Casaca has made a very good effort to explain it to Parliament. I should also like to thank the Commission for its continuing efforts to tidy up the whole business of accounting in the area of agriculture. It is extremely important. We have recently been talking about regional funds and cohesion funds but the common agricultural policy is extremely important. It is the greatest instrument we have for cohesion since it is the only rural policy which the Community has and it brings immense benefits to peripheral areas and to people who are in businesses that are not otherwise viable. The policy was given a bad name in the past when most of the funds were channelled to the agricultural industry through the processors and exporters. We had the possibility for large amounts of fraud and racketeering through the payment of monetary compensatory amounts. With the reorganisation of the policy we have a new situation. It is fair to point out that the most recent report by the Court of Auditors for the year 1998 has not drawn attention to any single major failure of the Commission in this entire area. There have been problems but they were isolated, small offences, relating to areas of aid and also to premiums and the failure of national governments to understand the details of European law. But we have to recognise that for the most part the Commission was given a clean bill of health for 1998 which is the most recent report we have and it is to be congratulated on that. Considering that this is something like 48% of the entire budget – EUR 38 or 39 billion – it is quite an achievement, spent over fifteen countries, that the budget was within two and a half per cent of estimate and that waste and the possibility for loss were lower than the average for the budget. The changes to the whole system have made it easier to control. The fact that more money is now going directly to farmers makes it easier to understand exactly what is happening. The proposed changes will readjust our system of accounting to the new policies that have been devised. It is reasonable to expect Member States to produce the sort of detail that is necessary for the European Commission both from the management point of view as well as that of accounting, to have exact details of where and to whom the money is going, down to the last recipient. This is welcome. In relation to the amendments proposed by Mr Casaca, we can support all of them. We have received complaints from some people about the proposal to introduce tobacco. Maybe, as things stand at the moment, because the money goes to processors there is some point in saying that it should not be extended. But we spend EUR 1 000 million on the tobacco regime. There are about 135 000 farmers, about 135 000 hectares. That means approximately EUR 7 600 per hectare, approximately EUR 7 600 per farmer. That is a lot of money. It is only reasonable that we should seek to establish that this money goes to the farmers and applies to the hectares, as Mr Casaca has suggested. My group is asking for a divided vote to enable those who do not like the tobacco regime to vote against it but, on the other hand, our amendment is a message to the Commission that we really think this should be clarified so that the money will go exactly where it is supposed to: to rural areas and to farmers.

Political group: PPE-DE