Mr President, since the end of December 1995, when the Dayton peace accords were concluded, the European Union has contributed to peace in a major way. A great deal of funding has been freed up for reconstruction, the organisation of elections, contributions to human rights, etc. We also financed 53% of the High Representative Office. The Court of Auditors’ Special Report which is before us, is the third in a series. There have already been reports on the situation in Mostar, and a second report dealt with the reconstruction in former Yugoslavia. I believe that these special reports, together with the report which is now before us, have consistently made us as a European Parliament sit up and face the facts, and also try to act upon these reports in an effective manner. I also believe that progress has been made in this area thanks to the Court of Auditors’ way of working, together with the follow-up by Parliament, via the Committee on Budgetary Control. Ladies and gentlemen, the task of budgetary control cannot be carried out from a little office in Brussels or an office in Strasbourg. I believe that sometimes, it is necessary to visit the relevant location. Expertise in the field is necessary; you need to meet the people; you need to know what people have to put up with there, what the conditions are. For previous reports, other MEPs have been given the opportunity of going to Bosnia and Herzegovina. They learnt a lot from their visit, and I visited the place myself between 16 and 19 October of last year. That is very important. I would like to reiterate as well as underline this. In actual fact, I learnt more in those four days in Sarajevo than I could have learnt from wading through reams and reams of written material. I would therefore like to urge the Conference of Presidents to take this into consideration when, at a later date, they decide for or against giving rapporteurs the opportunity to have this experience. What was the criticism about, ladies and gentlemen? First of all, criticism was levelled at the Commission for not deploying sufficient resources and staff and for a Brussels-based management which is too centralised. I gather that this criticism by the Court of Auditors has been acted upon by the European Commission. All credit to the Commission for this. Improvements have been made and staffing levels have increased. I would like to stress here that the people in the delegation in Sarajevo are better organised, highly qualified and highly motivated. That is thanks to the Court of Auditors’ criticism and the fact that Parliament has acted upon this criticism. Furthermore, the Commission has, under pressure from the Court of Auditors, adopted a deconcentration policy, which has given the people in the Sarajevo delegation, but also in other delegations, more clout. It has also meant that the head of the delegation can meet the needs on the ground in a more powerful manner, and has also ensured that all overdue payments have now been cleared. So, as far as this is concerned, well done to the Commission. Other criticism concerned the High Representative’s Office and how the European Union works with that office. The European Commission has been blamed for not keeping a close enough eye on it. Thanks to the Court of Auditors’ report and the action taken by Parliament, there is now a new mentality in the Office of the High Representative. It is indeed the case that, since March 1999, there has been a new financial director who has written a veritable tome on the rules to be followed. Apparently, when the High Representative first took up office, rather a lot was being wasted. His commitment, and that of the Commission and the office as a whole, has slimmed down the budget of the High Representative’s Office by nearly EUR 5 million over a period of three years. I believe that this is an extremely positive result. Moreover, one of the key criticisms directed at the High Representative was also in the shape of Paragraph 17 on the conflict of interests generated by the former financial director. Parliament, at least in the resolution now before us, is asking for a full explanation in this regard. I have to let you know that I have now received a document from the High Representative, and from the Commission, and that the key criticisms have been addressed in this document. That is why I propose the adoption of my amendment, which takes this into account. Other criticism was expressed with regard to human rights. I have to say that the Commission is doing a truly creditable job on this in Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina in general. I believe we should make more funds available to those people, but in terms of human rights, we are still waiting for responses from the Commission with regard to Paragraphs 29 and 35. A final – important – point I would like to make is the recurring theme of the media policy. The Commission has come under very strong criticism with regard to its media policy. It is reported that with regard to this policy, EUR 2 million’s worth of equipment was subsidised which was not eligible for subsidy. I am still waiting for a detailed report from the Commission. It is included in the resolution, and so I hope that a response will be forthcoming in the very near future.

Political group: Verts-ALE