Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, not only does combating fraud seem to be becoming an ongoing task in the EU, but the Commission is also showing a great deal of imagination when it comes to the ways and means, and it is again showing its capacity for fantasy with this communication on the fraudproofing of legislation and contract management – a high-sounding title in very truth. It remains to be seen whether the draft, when it comes to fruition, will also contain what has been promised. I think it right to be sceptical about that. Since taking office, this Commission has distinguished itself by placatory promises, the words of which have not been followed up by actions. The Commission's announcement of its slogan ‘Zero Tolerance for Fraud and Irregularities’ has not prevented the officially-acknowledged fraud figures for 2000 from being higher than ever, and even those for 2001 from being, at EUR 1.25 billion, well above the average for previous years. Legislation and contracts are now to be drafted in such a way as to be fraudproof. It is as if they were meant to be stamped with the words ‘checked and found fraudproof’! Is that the big picture? Is it not self-evident that legal documents – insofar as such documents are at all able to do so – promote lawful rather than unlawful conduct when the EU's billions are handed out? Does the Commission not employ hosts of well-trained and highly-paid officials, and this objective not far from the least of those they are there to achieve? Actually, I do think, if we are really honest, that this communication is superfluous, promoting as it does something that goes without saying. I can only sum this up by saying that the Commission's clocks are obviously set differently after all. It is evidently necessary to lay down by means of an official communication that we must obey rather than disobey the law. I find that very worrying on the part of an institution that is the custodian of the European treaties. In view of that, should the Commission not at last deal with the cases of fraud that have come to light and draw the necessary conclusions? Is that not the method that promises success? To give one example, why does the Commission, with the resources at its disposal, not take a certain former lady Commissioner before the European Court of Justice? Providing a deterrent example for the future, that would be better targeted. But no, the Commission prefers to change the Financial Regulation in order to reduce transparency. It is still trying to limit Parliament's supervisory role, and it has done away with the independent financial controller. All these points are referred to in Mr Bösch's Report, which I also fully endorse in other respects. If fraud is to be successfully combated, then decisive intervention is indispensable. Anything else can be nothing more than an accompanying measure. Now I do not want to use this opportunity to enlarge on criticism of the Commission's book-keeping system, although there seems to be a certain amount wrong with it, but it is rather sad how the Commission continues to deal with criticism. It seems to have learned nothing from it. Mr Bösch mentioned it, and I want to repeat it. A Danish official is deprived of her brief and is marginalised for drawing attention to instances of maladministration, by which I mean what went on at Eurostat, to which our report makes reference. Despite this criticism – and despite what I am tempted to bluntly call adequate grounds for suspicion – the Commission continues to cooperate with a firm that operates in a highly questionable way, which has won contracts by deception and has failed to do any good work. This is something to which the Commission must respond. If it does not, it cannot be spared the criticism that communications such as this one are nothing more than diversionary manoeuvres!

Political group: PPE-DE