Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 2002 presented us with another sharp increase in misuses, mismanagement and irregularities in the European Union, with which we had to deal. If we add together the cases reported in the Member States and what OLAF brought to light – some years earlier, it must be admitted – then we are talking about over two billion euros. I cannot recall a time when this sum was as substantial. Let me stress that we are talking here about irregularities, and we know that, in the course of further investigations, only a fraction of these irregularities will turn out to be fraud. Speaking as a representative of this House, I want to make it clear that this is where the various analyses that appear in the media do not go far enough. Particularly at the end of a parliamentary term and of a Commission’s term of office, the amount involved is enormous, and cannot be regarded as satisfactory. The increase is particularly marked in the case of the Structural Funds, where the sums reported have trebled – from around EUR 200 million to over EUR 600 million. This is where the question arises of how conscientious Member States are about reporting irregularities. There are still different ways of interpreting things, and disputes as to what is to be reported and how, and it is quite simply incredible how a country like Belgium can report 14 cases to the Commission and Italy 107, while Germany reports nearly 2000 cases. From that we know that there is a massive lack of harmonisation here, and I say this with particular reference to the reform of the structural policies, among others. Those of us who sit on the Committee on Budgetary Control do not do so in order to record the history of our times; what we want is to take the weaknesses of the former policies and develop from them strengths for the future. I can make this claim only in respect of my own share in the work. Something similar applies where the recovery of funds is concerned. What is the point, Commissioner, when it comes to fraud prevention, if one has to wait almost decades before the money is returned? One particular Member State, Italy, has been waiting for recovery for many years already. That is an open secret, as is the fact that it is being used as an instrument of policy. The second major area is that of agriculture. Our Committee has for a long time sought to get the Commission and the Member States, once and for all, to do away with export refunds and, most of all, with those paid for the unspeakable, because pain-filled, unethical and cruel transport of live cattle. It defies comprehension how, in 2002, of some 262 000 live cattle, the export of which cost us some EUR 62 million of tax revenue, 226 000 could be delivered to a small country like Lebanon. We have indications, which we have to take seriously, that Lebanon does not by any means possess the capacity to absorb, consume, slaughter or process this number of animals itself. Commissioner, we can remember the case, not so long ago, when a sudden increase in meat exports to Jordan was eventually explained as the circumvention of UN sanctions against Iraq. I cannot therefore understand why the Commission is again, ostrich-fashion, burying its head in the sand and pleading ignorance. We call for OLAF to get involved in this. I am not talking about prevention; I am just waiting for the first animal rights activists to accompany these exports and for us to see the first pictures in the media. This is what European taxpayers’ money is being used for. There is a third point I would like to mention: a few days ago, we heard of the unprecedented raid on a journalist’s home, not – contrary to what we have read today – in connection with anything that happens here in this House, but in connection with the case of Paul van Buitenen. We would like to raise the issue of how OLAF has handled this case. We well remember the reprimand given to OLAF in connection with this by the European Ombudsman. We recall how OLAF’s investigations can commence only where there is well-founded suspicion and that they must be of appropriate duration – in other words, they must not be artificially extended. We would ask the OLAF Supervisory Committee to state whether, in this instance, these rules have been broken and whether or not this investigation has been misused for the purpose of putting journalists under pressure or of intimidating them. Mr Kendall, the chairman of the Supervisory Committee, has informed me that this will be an item on the agenda of the Committee’s next meeting, in April, and has also confirmed to me that OLAF did not seek the Committee’s opinion before calling in the Belgian justice authorities. One member of the Committee, Mr Noack, told the press that, if the Committee’s inquiries led it to the conclusion that OLAF’s actions were unacceptable, then the dismissal of its Director-General was not to be excluded as a possibility. Let me stress at this point how important the Supervisory Committee’s report on this matter will be to us. This is the test case for whether the monitoring of OLAF works or not and for whether or not the necessary action is taken when things get out of control. With this in mind, I can do no other than warn those in positions of responsibility within OLAF against hiding themselves behind Belgian justice. There must be no exceptions: everything that OLAF has done in this matter so far, everything that has been passed on to the judicial authorities, must be submitted to the Supervisory Committee. We need this matter to be clarified, and soon; not in months, but in a few weeks.

Political group: PSE