Mr President, in the discharge for 1999, we looked at the budget from all sides. Light was shed on all the sectors. All the EU institutions were examined in turn because, even if it is ultimately the Commission that is responsible for implementing the budget, it does not, of course, act in isolation. It is bound by decisions taken in Parliament and in the Council, and it is dependent upon the effectiveness of supervision in the Member States. The agricultural area is a shining example. The Commission is proposing a reform of agricultural policy, but the Council and Parliament are resisting this and proposing that the subsidies be made still more bureaucratic, over-generous and vulnerable to fraud and trickery. The flax, milk and sugar subsidies are good examples. There is, however, a continual need for fundamental reform and a new administrative culture in the Commission. We do not always agree with the Commission, but we basically have the same objectives, namely that the Commission should become an efficient and modern administration. What is most important is that the Commission’s reform plan should proceed in the right way. My original plan was to compare the individual directorates-general of the Commission and offer a characterisation of each one of them. That would have been in keeping with the spirit of the reform, but it has not been possible to carry out that comparison. I should like to call upon the Court of Auditors to investigate what is practised in the Member States. The discharge for 1999 highlighted a number of very sore points in the Commission’s administration. One of the most important was the inadequate review of auditors’ reports and the insufficient degree of follow-up. In the report on the discharge for 1999, the Commission is asked to send Parliament reports twice a year, summarising all the auditors’ reports and their recommendations together with the ways in which these have been followed up. Apparently, the Commission will only agree to the internal auditing service’s briefing Parliament once a year, and that is absolutely not enough. The financial controller used to brief Parliament four times a year, and that is what we also expect from the new department. The supply of information is always the biggest bone of contention between Parliament and the Commission. I have had an incredible amount of information supplied in connection with the discharge for 1999, and I should like to thank the Commission for this. However, clear rules that can be applied are needed, irrespective of the identities of the Commissioner and of the rapporteur for the discharge. The framework agreement is a mess. It can be used to withhold documents and to keep them confidential, for it is the Commission which, in the last analysis, decides whether a document is confidential. What is more, it is bureaucratic and leads to long delays. I have respected the framework agreement because that is what applies at present, but I think we should make efforts to have it renegotiated, and I should like to ask our President, Mr Cox, to honour his pledges concerning openness and reforms, especially in this area. The Committee on Budgetary Control might well consider spending more time on evaluation. We must ensure value for money. It is unfortunately my impression that most evaluations are simply binned. The Commission has promised to submit results of evaluations that have been carried out. It does not go into how often and in what way. What does the Commission say to providing a briefing every quarter or every six months? There are quite a few practical issues arising from the discharge for 1999 that it has not been possible to follow up, either because OLAF investigations are not complete or because a disciplinary case is under way in the Commission. Many of the big issues raised by the discharge for 1999, such as the IRELA case, are still being dealt with by OLAF, which does not put much of a move on. There has been a lot of focus on IRELA, the Institute for European-Latin American Relations that has now been closed down. I am not sorry that the Institute has been closed down. The Commission now has delegations in the majority of Latin American countries which attend to the links between Europe and that part of the world, but matters have to be properly cleared up. OLAF is at present in the process of concluding an internal investigation to clarify whether disciplinary procedures need to be instituted. IRELA still has EUR 3.4 million to repay. I should like to ask the Commission what the situation is regarding those repayments. I should also like to applaud the Commission, and especially Mrs Schreyer, for following up the Flechard case. This showed that it is possible to admit to a mistake and then change the rules. I really do think it is a splendid result we have achieved. There is then the issue concerning the Stockholm Representation which, on the other hand, cannot be brought to a conclusion. I accept that the matter rests with the Swedish prosecution authorities, but we shall need to do something about this. I should like finally to say thank you for one and a half year’s worth of sound cooperation and, in particular, to thank Commissioner Schreyer. It has been a pleasure to work with someone so well qualified. As it turned out, it was not just cooperation but more along the lines of a good friendship, through which we have achieved fantastic results. That is something for which I should very much like to convey my thanks here in this House and, if this is to be the pattern for the future, then it is really something we can build further upon. It has been really splendid.

Political group: GUE-NGL