Mr President, I am sure it is no reflection on the quality of Mr Heaton-Harris' speech that the public gallery emptied while he was speaking. (NL) Mr President, I too greatly appreciate the work of the six rapporteurs – seven in fact, as Mr Bourlanges had no choice but to hand over to Mr McCartin halfway through. I shall confine my contribution to this debate to the report which they brought about together. This report contains four points that are central to us: firstly, the recurring request for modernising the working methods of the European Court of Auditors. As in previous years, the Court of Auditors was unable to issue a positive statement of assurance for the implementation of the 2000 Budget. This was to be expected, as the Court of Auditors’ methodology is unrelenting. One error identified in a random test of 300 transactions results in a negative judgment. The Court of Auditors is not unlike an astronomer who scours the night sky with a microscope and can only see dust particles. On the basis of current methodology, there will be no positive statement of assurance forthcoming for some time yet. Commissioner Schreyer has since acknowledged this too. Progress made by the Commission in fighting fraud and irregularities must be outlined in a more readily understood format. Risk discrepancies between sectors must be mapped out. The Court of Auditors’ evaluation should mainly focus on the quality of the control systems. The development of the single-audit concept, the topic of my second point, can play an important role in this. National and European governments still operate independently of one another far too often when monitoring the spending of European money. In the McCartin report, we call for the development of a single audit model for the EU budget, in which each level of control builds on the preceding one, with a view to reducing the burden on the auditee and enhancing the quality of audit activities. Commissioner, are you prepared to look into the feasibility of this concept? Thirdly, the McCartin report also draws our attention to major problems in the agricultural sector, particularly with regard to export refunds. The problems identified by the Court of Auditors once again underline the urgent need for a complete overhaul of the common agricultural policy. Mr Casaca will undoubtedly expand on this. Finally, I should like to say something about the discussion surrounding Paul van Buitenen, which has flared up once again. With his inquiry into fraud and irregularities within the Commission in 1999, Paul van Buitenen made a major contribution to the removal from office of the Santer Commission and the reform process which was subsequently instigated. He has been called a hero of European democracy, with good reason. Since 1999, major changes have been made in the field of staffing policy and financial management. OLAF has received independent status. Whistle-blowers now enjoy the protection they deserve. In the middle of last year, Paul van Buitenen presented a new report, which included information about possible irregularities. All allegations in this report must be thoroughly investigated. Where necessary, disciplinary measures or even legal steps must be taken. We must avoid a situation where innocent people are wrongly pilloried, because the implications for those involved, but also for the Commission, are all but incalculable. We are satisfied with the way in which the Commission is handling things for the moment. We have no reason to question the integrity of OLAF or any other parties involved. We are waiting for the results of the inquiry and will then pass judgment. This is what we have agreed and we are adhering to this. The Group supports the proposal to grant discharge to the Commission for the implementation of the 2000 Budget, and I warmly congratulate Commissioner Schreyer on this outcome; it is, after all, the first budgetary year for which she has been fully responsible.

Political group: PSE