Mr President, I drafted the report on the discharge for the European Development Fund. In our discussions on this in the committee, we had a broad consensus on our analysis of the development of the European Development Fund, and also on our decisions regarding the report. I have also enjoyed very constructive cooperation with the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and I should like to thank the institutions for that. Looking at the Court of Auditors’ Statement of Assurance on the European Development Fund, we can say that the expenditure has been approved, but only with reservations, as the Court of Auditors is not prepared to give the green light with regard to direct budgetary support, which in 2002 constituted approximately a quarter of aid. This is important because, according to all plans, more and more aid will in future be given in the form of direct budgetary support. If these funds are used correctly and if we are to be given the opportunity of examining whether or not they are being used correctly, there must be a sea change in the quality of budgetary control and monitoring in the beneficiary ACP States. A great deal of work remains to be done in this regard by the Commission before we can be given proper accounts for this. This is a key factor in the future auditing of the European Development Fund. The Court of Auditors is also very critical regarding the annual declaration of the Director-General of the competent Directorate-General. The Court of Auditors does not believe that he was in a position to make this declaration on the basis of the information at his disposal. The Commission should take this criticism on board, and my judgment is that it is very serious. It indicates that the control system is still not working properly. When we asked the Commission for actual reports evaluating various projects in various ACP States, it took a very long time to procure these reports. This confirms much of what we feared during this work, namely that Headquarters in Brussels has an inadequate overview of the work in the Delegations. If it does not have the reports and cannot give them to us, even though they are on the lists, it is hard to imagine that there is proper monitoring in place. We are of the opinion that this is something that the Committee on Budgetary Control must continue to examine and look at next year. As a whole, then, we recommend granting discharge in respect of the European Development Fund. I should also like to say a few words about the other reports, which have also largely caused more controversy than mine in this debate, chiefly the reports by Mr van Hulten and Mrs Stauner. The Confederal Group of the and I shall not be voting in favour of granting discharge to the Council or the Committee of the Regions and, in our opinion, the votes on discharge for these two institutions should have been postponed. The main issue with the Council is its attitude and unwillingness to cooperate with Parliament. The Council was sent a schedule, a questionnaire, which it is in effect refusing to answer. Such requests for answers to questions are in fact fully in line with the Financial Regulation in force. In reply, the Council refers to a kind of gentlemen’s agreement from the 1970s, which is completely obsolete. In reply, the Council of Ministers deigned to give answers to certain selected questions to certain selected Members; this is in no way binding and is secretive. I think that this runs counter to the spirit of this discharge process as a whole, which should be open and transparent. Nor can we vote in favour of discharge in respect of the Committee of the Regions. As much as a year ago, the whistle was blown on very serious cases of maladministration in the Committee of the Regions, especially regarding travel expenses and a great many other points. It is quite evident that the Committee of the Regions still has not taken this in hand in earnest: quite the reverse. The committee still rejects several of the main conclusions from OLAF’s investigation. As OLAF had expected, it has failed to put into operation the disciplinary procedures that it should have instituted. It is quite clear that the Financial Controller who blew the whistle on the maladministration has been badly treated and has not received the apology he was due, as his actions were fully in line with his duties. Concerning the report by Mr van Hulten, we are of the opinion that this is a very good piece of work. It is of high quality, thorough and very specific. On the subject of Parliament itself, it is time to push for the abolition of the Strasbourg sittings. There is no excuse from the point of view of budgetary control for spending nearly EUR 200 million extra per year commuting between Brussels and Strasbourg. Now is the time, before the end of the Intergovernmental Conference, to put forward this point of view, and we have the opportunity to do so tomorrow. The matter of reimbursement to MEPs will be an issue in these elections whether we like it or not, but Parliament only has itself to blame. There is no way of justifying to the man in the street the various systems of reimbursement we have and the fact that it is we who have granted ourselves them. Instead, we must bring in a new system of reimbursement and salaries that is justifiable and transparent. For this reason, together with Mr Blak of the Group, I have tabled a number of amendments intended to clean up the system of privileges. This relates in particular to our belief that travel expenses should be reimbursed on the basis of the actual costs incurred rather than the distance travelled. We are also of the opinion that the existing system for taxi fares should be revised. Parliament has free cars at its disposal, and thus there is no reason to also have a system for reimbursing taxi fares; we can pay these ourselves out of our subsistence allowance. We have also put forward a number of proposals intended to tighten up the system for obtaining the daily subsistence allowance so that it is more closely linked to the meetings we actually attend. Finally, I wish to comment on the Eurostat affair, and also on the Commission statement, even if the Commission seems to be leaving. I think that the proof is overwhelming, as the whistle was blown on the maladministration within Eurostat long before the Commission chose to act. The whistle was blown by Parliament and the internal audit service, but the Commission was too slow to act. This is a matter of political responsibility. At the start of the Commission’s term of office, its President emphasised that the Commission should require individual Commissioners to accept political responsibility, and now, when it finds itself in a situation where it should have done so, it is saying it is not necessary. This is a great disappointment given the aspirations the Commission had when it took office. In our opinion, this is not good enough.

Political group: GUE-NGL