Mr President, Commissioner, President of the Court of Auditors, I should like to start by thanking Mr Fabra Vallés for the excellent report he has presented. I should also like to thank the whole Court for its ongoing work. The Committee on Budgetary Control depends on this work to allow it to discharge its responsibilities. We find it very useful indeed to be able to study and analyse the reports forwarded to us by the Court of Auditors. The annual report presented to the House today is of particular importance. I should like to focus on specific issues in that report. These include reform of the Commission, the responsibilities of the authorising officers, internal control and the introduction of a service of internal auditing. I believe they are key to improving the functioning of the European Commission and to better implementation of its budget. Internal control and following up reform are the most vital of the aforementioned issues. I shall come back to them later. I also believe that all the analysis of enlargement is very significant. This includes an account of the remaining deficiencies in the structures and in the implementation of the Community acquis. Nonetheless, some progress has been made in this regard. Shortcomings in the implementation of pre-accession instruments are also detailed. Once again, significant improvement has been recorded but the overall situation remains most unsatisfactory. Indeed, many of the shortcomings and deficiencies we are confronted with in those countries could perhaps have been avoided had there been a greater commitment to those instruments and had there been a greater effort to ensure that they functioned more effectively. I shall now turn to budgetary management. The surplus remains considerable. It is less than it was, which represents some progress, but the fact that such a sizeable surplus still has to be dealt with is cause for considerable concern. As has been stated in the House, this may well prove to be the responsibility of the Member States. Nonetheless, the European Commission should exercise greater control to prevent such a situation arising. It represents an obstacle to effective implementation of Community programmes. All this relates to one of the issues considered in greater detail in the Court’s report for this year. I refer to shared management with the Member States, and in particular to the EAGGF and the Structural Funds. Failure to implement has been most marked in these areas. I believe this calls for particular attention and I hope it will receive it both throughout this year and in the course of our current deliberations on discharge for the year 2002. Controls by the Member States must improve, as should the percentage of expenditure. We have stressed this on a number of occasions. I should also like to emphasise the need for a more detailed study of the reform. A more careful study must also be made of how it stands at present, of its possible shortcomings and of appropriate changes, should any prove necessary. Reform is essential if management of the European Commission is to become more flexible. Serious shortcomings have been noted. They are due to the longstanding in-house culture. As has been apparent today, a particular attitude prevails amongst officials. This means Commissioners are sometimes required to assume responsibility. Obviously, in the fullness of time Commissioners reach the end of their mandate and are succeeded by others full of good intentions and ideas. It should be understood that structural change and full and complete implementation of the reform are essential to capitalise on the good will and good intentions of these Commissioners. As I conclude, I should also like to mention that bringing the European Development Fund under the Commission’s control and management would be a significant step forward. It would also be helpful to have it within the scope of this committee’s budgetary control.

Political group: PPE-DE