Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report Mr Blak has presented on discharge for the European Development Funds clearly shows the particular problems faced by European development policy. There are manifest problems originating in the Commission's system and in the way it works. Hence it cannot be acceptable that there should be, at the end of 2000, a sum of EUR 6 billion available and yet unused. It cannot be the case, in view of the increasing destitution in many ACP countries, that the Commission is unable to manage to get the funds made available to those who are in need of them. The Commission has made a start on changing the system in these areas. It has, since the Cotonou agreement, been going further down the road of giving aid in the form of sectoral budget support programmes. Put in simple terms, that means that the Commission has more faith in the recipient countries' responsibility. That is, in itself, a way of going about things that should be welcomed. The only thing is that this trust must, of necessity, be counterbalanced, in the event of misuse, by a consistent demand for the money to be returned. It is such consistency that is evidently lacking, as the Court of Auditors noted that, whilst the Commission carries out audits, and also spots abuses, not one cent of the EUR 14 million referred to by the Court of Auditors had been reclaimed or retrieved. Here, the Commission must summon up the courage to state the reasons for this. Either this is the fault of its own incompetent administration, or there are general political reasons for refraining from demanding the money back. I take the view that this will prove to be the scratch test for the new system of finance. If greater trust is placed in the recipient states, that presupposes that the recipients are fully answerable for any misuses. Everything else strikes me as inconsequential and as not in the long-term interests of the recipients. Here, the Commission must come to a definite decision and must not go down the road of least resistance, more comfortable though that would no doubt be. We are left with criticism of a few of this EDF process's anachronisms, with which we have long been acquainted and which ought to be done away with as quickly as possible. If Parliament is to give discharge, then it is Parliament to which budgetary and legislative power over the EDF's resources should be conceded. The Statement of Assurance, too, which is given by the Court of Auditors in its report on the EDF, must, like the Statement of Assurance on the General Budget, involve a complete audit and must not stop at the point where the funds leave the Commission level. Here, too, is the explanation of why there is a favourable Statement of Assurance relating to the EDF. The existence of two different Statements of Assurance is not only confusing, but also deceptive. I turn now to the discharge for Parliament's budget, where Parliament must be especially careful to avoid the least whiff of the suggestion that it might treat its own funds with less rigour than it treats those of others. I wish to expressly emphasise the demand in the chapter on personnel policy in Mr Virrankoski's report that the meagre representation of women in positions of leadership should at last be ended and that there be a serious attempt at an equal opportunities policy. Parliament's Secretary-General bears personal responsibility for this. Parliament must set an example if it does not want to lose its credibility. It is something more than sad that the Secretary-General has not seized these opportunities throughout the long years he has been in office. I also think that Parliament must play an exemplary role in creating an independent internal audit department, meaning that the auditors would not be subject to directions of any kind from the Directors-General and the Secretary-General. We also welcome the right to make reports directly to the President of Parliament. The report on the discharge of the Parliamentary Budget must neither cover up omissions and deficiencies, nor should it be misused in order to have internal problems dealt with elsewhere, which is what seems to be the objective of several amendments that have been reintroduced in the meantime. In particular, the Financial Regulation is not suited to solving problems within Parliament. These we have to sort out ourselves. Transparency, regularity and responsibility for one's colleagues are principles which, as Mr Blak said, are self-evident in the Parliamentary context. They are not suited to the settlement of party-political disputes, and there should not, therefore, be constant and self-tormenting calls for them. I will conclude by asking you to support my Amendment No 8 to Mr McCartin's report. It instructs the President of Parliament even now to defend Parliament's rights under Article 276 of the Treaty establishing the European Community before the European Court of Justice in the event of the Council again proceeding to restrict them. IN THE CHAIR: MR DIMITRAKOPOULOUVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE