Mr President, in March 2003 when the Committee on Budgetary Control was about to vote on the resolution giving discharge to the Committee of the Regions for 2001, I received a telephone call from the internal auditor of the Committee of the Regions, Mr Robert McCoy, as did several of my colleagues. Mr McCoy had alarming news for us: the information provided to Parliament by the Committee of the Regions in the course of the discharge procedure was incorrect. The next day, the Budgetary Control Committee decided that the vote should be postponed to give Mr McCoy a chance to present his views. He did so, and issued what he called a cry for help. He said that his views had been misrepresented by the Secretary-General and the Finance Director of the Committee of the Regions, and that, despite a series of reforms, the COR still flouted basic financial rules, in particular in relation to tendering procedures and Members’ expenses. As a result of Mr McCoy’s intervention, the Budgetary Control Committee, and subsequently plenary, decided to postpone discharge for the COR and called on that institution to commission – and I quote – 'a detailed, full and independent audit, to be carried out by an external and recognised institution – preferably by the European Court of Auditors – on the Committee's overall budget implementation, as well as the financial and administrative management; considers that the audit should examine, inter alia, the areas listed above and attest to the sound financial management of the institution'. At the same time I decided to refer the case to OLAF. The results of these investigations were shocking. In the case of the Court of Auditors it was shocking because we received a one-page document consisting of 300 words which basically gave the COR a clean bill of health. This was not what we had asked for. The OLAF report painted a quite different picture. It had found an endemic culture of unprofessionalism and improvisation. It uncovered evidence of tampering with tendering procedures by COR officials and false expenses claims by members – including former presidents – of the COR. It went on to say that the efforts of the administration had been focused on discouraging or destabilising the messenger of the bad news, in this case the financial controller, rather than to change things for the benefit of the COR. Mr McCoy was therefore right when he came to see us and he deserves an unreserved apology for the treatment he has been subjected to, and applause for his courage in coming forward. The COR has now begun to improve things: the Secretary-General has been removed from his post for different reasons – although the bungled process of his appointment was also likely to be a result of the administrative chaos at the COR; the President of the COR has announced a preliminary enquiry into the opening of disciplinary proceedings; a reform process has been set in motion involving all COR staff who wish to be involved and a former Member of the Court of Auditors is to advise the COR on the adequacy of the reforms. For these reasons the COR and its President deserve the benefit of the doubt. That is why my Group will be voting to grant discharge tomorrow, but will do so with very little enthusiasm. (Applause)

Political group: PSE