Mr President, Commissioner, if we are honest, we find ourselves in a somewhat unusual situation. We are discussing last year’s discharge, but also the Commission’s responsibility. I would like to raise the problems which are still piled up high on our desks. The assessment of whether or not the discharge will be granted also depends to some extent on where the emphasis is placed. It is about a Commission which is no more. There is now a new Commission. Then it is logical to grant discharge, because how can the current Commissioner be blamed where 1997 is concerned? The problems remain and this gives rise to doubts. We have to take a decision now regarding the Commission’s good intentions, but there is still no structural outline for these good intentions. Mr Kinnock will present his proposal next month. We are all very much anticipating this, but the facts are still missing at this time when we already have to decide whether or not to grant discharge. It is clearly a dilemma with which the rapporteur has also struggled. This dilemma stretches beyond the areas which I have already listed. Take, for example, the pledges made by the Commission. They look good in themselves. I have read a few documents written by Mr Kinnock and we have every confidence in them. But I will give two examples from which it is not as evident that the good intentions which the Commission has now expressed will lead to a good outcome: the public nature and confidentiality of documents. The previous speaker already said something about this. A document is circulating at the moment – not at a low level, but at a high level within the Commission – which, instead of enhancing the public nature of documents, is having the opposite effect. This is an illustration of empty pledges not necessarily leading to good results. This also applies to whistle-blowers. Mr Kinnock has also devoted some fine-sounding phrases to this subject but, at the same time, it is entirely unclear, at this moment when we have to make a decision, what, for example, happens with whistle-blowers who want to get something off their chest and cannot do this internally but who want to address the outside world – the press or Parliament. We have still not had a response to crucial questions of this type. So there is doubt as to whether these pledges of the Commission contain enough substance at this crucial time when decisions need to be made. This also applies, for example, to the very real projects which the Committee on Industry has introduced. In my opinion, the Commission and Mr Kinnock should come with good intentions and with sound plans on personnel policy and financial management, but each Commissioner who is now responsible for an area which has had serious shortcomings in the past should come with sound plans in order to improve the situation and not with general, empty proposals. At the moment, our group still feels sympathy for, and patience with, the Commission because it cannot be held responsible for a large proportion of the mistakes made in the past, but this patience has a limit. Clear progress must be visible. At present, we trust that the Commission will produce these sound proposals, but it is not a foregone conclusion that it will do so. Finally, Mr President, the 1996 discharge was the beginning of the end of the last Commission. I express the hope that – in fact, I urge the present Commission to ensure that – the 1997 discharge is the beginning of a true reform of financial policy by the Commission. Otherwise this discharge will not have been of any value.

Political group: Verts-ALE