Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have the following comments to make on my report concerning discharge for the other institutions. As Mr Sjöstedt has already pointed out, the Council has indeed largely withdrawn from control and cooperation with Parliament, in contrast to the other institutions. We cannot accept this situation. It also cannot be justified on historical grounds or in terms of a 'gentlemen's agreement’. That is why we have called, in my report, for a response no later than 1 July 2004 to the outstanding questions contained in our questionnaire. The increases in remuneration resulting from the system of 'weightings' which the Members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors are granting to themselves must be condemned. Whereas the Commission was sensible enough, in this case at least, to vote in favour of suspending this illegal practice for its Members from 1 January 2003, the Court of Justice has reintroduced these increases in remuneration retrospectively on the basis of an internal administrative ruling. This cannot be regarded as a ruling in its judicial capacity, which means that these payments are still illegal. This gross violation of basic rule-of-law principles is especially regrettable when it is committed by the supreme guardian of European law, namely the European Court of Justice. The Court of Justice should set an example and be particularly scrupulous in the conduct of its internal affairs. The same applies to the provision whereby Members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors can use official cars for their private purposes to a quite excessive degree. However, as the Court of Justice and – in its wake – the Court of Auditors, unfortunately, have failed to come into line, we are calling for any transfer of funds to the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors to be suspended until these practices have ceased. Only under these circumstances can I genuinely uphold my recommendation that discharge be granted to these two institutions. Nor will I conceal the fact that once again, as has already been mentioned, problems have arisen with financial management and staffing at the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. However, I believe that both institutions have demonstrated to the committee that they are on the right track, and that to some extent, they are still trying to cope with longstanding problems. I believe, however, that discharge can be granted in these cases. I would like to make a positive comment about Mr Mulder's report concerning the agencies. We now have twelve agencies. That is a great many and as we all know, the number is likely to increase further in line with political objectives. However, I believe that as long as we are successful in avoiding duplication of work and setting appropriate priorities, the efficiency of these agencies will be guaranteed to a greater extent than is the case with the Commission, which is a mammoth bureaucracy. The heads of the eleven agencies are highly qualified and have demonstrated their responsibility for their particular agency. I would like to pay tribute to that. I really cannot say the same of the Members of the Commission, and the agencies make a refreshing change in this respect. After the Eurostat scandal, the dismissal of the Chief Accountant and the discovery of a completely inadequate accounting system deployed by this Commission to manage – or should I say mismanage – a budget of some EUR 100 billion, I will not be voting in favour of discharge for the Commission. Commissioner Fischler's comments a few moments ago about Eurostat also did not tell us anything we did not already know. I would like to find out from the Commissioner responsible why this Commission statement has just been delivered by the Agriculture Commissioner – have you concluded that Eurostat is an agricultural problem as well, or was there some other reason for this? I am sure you will be able to enlighten us. Combating fraud must of course continue to be a priority. Mr Bayona's report contains a number of points on this issue. In my view, the Commission should proceed very cautiously when amending the OLAF Regulation. In paragraph 90 of our esteemed colleague Mr Bayona's report, we have therefore clarified a number of points to ensure that OLAF can operate independently in future too, that it can focus on internal investigations, and that the rights of persons affected are protected.

Political group: PPE-DE