Mr President, although the Court of Auditors’ criticism of the Commission’s internal control and monitoring systems is fierce and direct, it is my opinion that we must recommend to Parliament that the Commission be granted discharge in respect of the implementation of the sixth, seventh and eighth Development Funds for 2001. In my report, I have focused on certain key basic concepts in current development policy and attempted to investigate whether these basic concepts place special requirements on, or raise particular issues in connection with, checks on the use of the funds. In this connection, I would like to emphasise various points: Ownership: ownership is of great importance if we are to manage development aid effectively. The point is that legitimate requirements of donors, a policy of relief of poverty, environmental aspects, etc. may conflict with national and local priorities. Budgetary support: budgetary support is another concept that caught my attention during my work on the report. As far as I can see, in principle there is no reason – certainly not from a control point of view – to avoid budgetary support. However, the Commission must carefully ensure that in future there is clarity concerning when and under what conditions budgetary support is an effective form of aid. Decentralisation: the much discussed decentralisation that the Commission has implemented is based on more decisions being made on the spot rather than here and in Brussels. I support this principle, but the Commission must ensure that the current problems with the audit arrangements at headquarters are not simply exported to the delegations. Underutilisation: the implementation of payments from the funds quite simply takes place too slowly. Can it be right that, for 2001, there was a total amount of approximately EUR 8 500 million outstanding for obligations and projects that had yet to be implemented? Moreover, I find it alarming that the three funds effective for the 2001 financial year have been in the process of implementation for 16, 11 and 4 years respectively. I also find it incomprehensible and bureaucratic that, in administrative terms, implementation must take place via three funds at the same time. I expect the Commission to present a realistic plan soon for increasing the speed of implementation and for simplifying administration of the funds. The declaration by the director-generals: in order for any significance to be attached to this document, I expect next year’s declaration to state clearly what ‘a reasonable assurance’ means. A limit must be placed on the number of reservations that can be made and on when these reservations have consequences. The Community’s external links are currently divided between no less than six different services. This fact was supposed to have been evaluated in 2002, but we have not yet seen any results of these evaluations. We are still waiting. As a result of its financial audit, the Court of Auditors’ sharply criticises the Commission’s internal control structure and monitoring mechanisms. This is regrettable, even a matter for criticism, since it means we cannot assess whether we are getting value for money. Finally, with regard to the budget: it is now up to the Commission to establish specific action plans and time scales for at long last bringing the development funds into the general budget. It is entirely unacceptable that tax-payers’ money is not being used as effectively as it could be, and this is due not to the Commission – which is so often blamed – but to the governments in certain Member States. My report on the development funds is only part of the overall discharge procedure. The discharge procedure is an opportunity for Parliament to test the Commission’s ability to administer the EU’s tax money. In this connection, I am surprised that the rate of reform in the Commission seems to be declining in certain areas. In view of many of the figures that we are discussing, it is essential that we have a reliable accounting system. That is not the case at present. The current Commission replaced the Santer Commission, which had got bogged down. We may ask whether the same thing is in the process of happening to this Commission. In the areas that I have been working on, it had the opportunity and time, as well as the ability, to reform the administration of the EU. A lot remains to be desired, and I must say that Mr Prodi’s wish for five more years as President of the Commission represents excessive optimism. If the goods had been delivered, if the reforms had been implemented, and if the will and ability to get rid of old, poor administrative practices had been demonstrated, there would be reason to wish him every success, but that does not appear to be the case at present. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR