Madam President, I am very keen to add my congratulations to those extended to the rapporteur and fully concur with the previous speakers who actually said that they will support this report. I could stop there, but since I have four minutes of speaking time, for once, as opposed to two I will say something more on the subject after all. The call for more openness and transparency is closely bound up with the call for more democracy that is ringing out loud and clear across Europe, not least in relation to the institutions of the European Community. Parliament – and we have been reminded of this – was most insistent in its calls for clarity during the last part-session and made a stand against dirty tricks and fraud. When I arrived here a year ago I saw the reports produced by the Committee on Budgetary Control, the report by Mr Bösch, how many meetings there were under Mrs Theato’s leadership, and the protest being made by Mr van Buitenen. It all revolved around the question of clarity and transparency. This therefore led to an interinstitutional agreement being produced, which we welcomed. It may not have contained everything we could have wished for but it was still a very honourable compromise and went further than Parliament had been able to manage. But all this happened back on 25 May 1999. The Council, the Commission and Parliament have now reached agreement in principle but OLAF, the new anti-fraud office, was unable to set to work because, on the one hand, a formal ruling still had to be issued by the Bureau for the purpose of making the procedures applicable to Parliament’s services and, on the other, we have yet to take up responsibility ourselves, as a Parliament, so that we as individuals, our services, and our working practices also become subject to the same supervision that we impose on the Commission and on Parliament’s services. I therefore think it is absolutely essential that we take this step here today. There are, of course, individuals who have raised formal objections, and rightly so, but the rapporteur’s expertise and that of the people who have assisted him in compiling the texts, completely reassures us that there is no further cause for any objections and that we have crystal clear texts which will make the procedures applicable to Parliament itself, providing we add this amendment. Consequently, we are in favour of this happening without delay, for imagine if the reverse were to be the case. It does not bear thinking about, Madam President. One of the worst moments I have ever experienced in this Parliament occurred when we voted on the Statute, for there is still no sign whatsoever of a European Statute despite all the hoo-ha that was made about it at the time and despite all the praiseworthy efforts on the part of our Parliament. The fact that the “best” result had not been achieved was used as an argument for not pursuing something that would merely be “good”. I believe that in this case there is not even an argument for taking such a line, and that we can give our full support – in the firm belief that all formal objections have been resolved – to the proposed texts, so that the fight against fraud will be something to be undertaken not just by others but also by ourselves. The obligation to provide information that we impose on others will also apply to us, and we will be subject to the same supervision that we require others to submit to. I was often asked at the time if, in view of the fact that Parliament wanted to subject the Commission to more stringent supervision and to impose on it a stricter regime for combating fraud, Parliament would also live by the same code? I will be ashamed if we are unable to adopt this unanimously.

Political group: Verts-ALE