Mr President, my predecessors on the floor having almost all exceeded their speaking time by at least a minute, I crave your indulgence if I have to do the same. When this discharge procedure began last December with the Court of Auditors' report, I pointed out that we were now entering a stage in which we are talking about the systematic problem of the European Union's Budget policy and are less concerned with chasing after every potential or actual scandal. Two aspects indicate this, namely the comparatively small number of amendments before us to all the reports and the broad majorities by which they have been adopted, likewise the way that the prospect of this debate on the discharge has made comparatively few waves in the press. I would, though, like to say something very definite on the subject of Parliament. I want to pick up a point mentioned by Mrs Stauner, who spoke immediately before me. It is indeed true that it would be desirable for Parliament to be able to settle legally and entirely autonomously all the matters concerning the way it manages its budget. It would be marvellous, and I would support it, but the one problem with it is that no separation of Parliament's financial policies and the groups represented in Parliament is provided for in the European Union's Financial Regulation. It is, though, such a separation that we need. I would remind you that, two years ago, on the occasion of the Court of Auditors' report on the groups' financial policies, we had a great debate in this House, in which certain dubious financial practices on the part of individual groups reflected on the institution of Parliament as a whole and all Members of this House were seen by those in the galleries and by the press as having to answer for things which were in fact the responsibility only of individual groups. I would not wish to be made answerable for certain questionable financial practices that might well go on in other groups, and I likewise assume that, if something goes wrong in my group, Members belonging to other groups are not made answerable for them either. Mr Virrankoski's report now gives us the opportunity to take a significant step towards separating the responsibilities of Parliament's authorities and of the groups. It is a step that we must take. I warn against standing up and saying: How did we come to this pass, where we let the Commission, in a legislative proposal on the rules for implementing the Financial Regulation, prescribe what we should and should not do? We would then be creating a tremendous sham conflict with the Commission, in which we would show off our wondrous strength, and one side-effect would be that the separation of the responsibilities of the House authorities and the groups would be deferred for ever and a day; another side-effect – perhaps an agreeable one – would be that certain things that were done in the past, could be carried on with. For example, if a group dismisses a member of its staff, he or she protests his or her innocence to the House authorities and takes Parliament to an industrial tribunal. Or when accumulated and transferred leave entitlements of group staff amounting to astronomical sums have to be paid out of Parliament's budget, whilst it is actually the groups who should accept responsibility for it. So I warn against using sham conflicts to bring about such a situation in this House. If this situation is to be avoided, we can provide a draft solution by tomorrow. If, though, the situation really does arise at the end of the day in which the present state of affairs perpetuates itself, then we will call those who are responsible by the names they deserve. (Applause)

Political group: PSE