Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 6 July, this House will decide whether to grant discharge to the Commission in respect of the general budget for the 1998 financial year. As it is almost a year since the new Prodi Commission took up its duties, with the lofty promise of pursuing a policy of zero-tolerance towards fraud in dealings with the European tax-payer’s money, this budgetary discharge has special significance. This is the new Commission’s first opportunity to show how seriously it is taking this fresh start. On 13 April, Parliament postponed the decision on granting discharge for the 1998 financial year, at the same time citing 17 conditions that the Commission was to fulfil by 15 May. These conditions corresponded in large measure to the demands contained in the report by the Court of Auditors, such as the commitment to ultimately arrive at a positive statement of assurance. The Court of Auditors declined, for the fifth time in succession, to provide an assurance that the Commission’s handling of the finances for the 1998 financial year had been careful and economical. In addition, they demanded measures for dealing with the unfinished business of the three notorious fraud cases concerning Fléchard, ECHO and MED, and for issuing penalties in respect of them. The Commission was criticised for being slow to produce documents and information, and likewise, there was criticism of the lack of transparency and independence as regards disciplinary procedures. Since the Commission had at least fulfilled some of the conditions within the period stipulated, and the appointment of a new Secretary-General of the Commission had signalled a fresh start on the personnel front, I moved in my follow-up report that discharge be granted, or at least I recommended that the Commission recover the funds from the Fléchard and ECHO cases, which are estimated to total approximately 17 million ecus, for the EU’s coffers. Furthermore, the Fléchard case should be kept open since a new state of affairs came about at the end of May, due, in particular, to the stand taken by the Court of Auditors. On 27 June 2000, a majority of the Committee on Budgetary Control rejected the call for the money to be recovered. If the House fails to bring about a change of heart here – and I would urge the honourable members to give me their backing – then this money will be lost to EU coffers. I believe these comments alone ought to be enough to inspire the Commission to take action on its own account to recoup the funds. What is more, it would be extremely easy in the Fléchard case, for this firm appears to still do good business with the Commission. The Commissioner for the Budget informed us on 15 June that up until 1996, a further three contracts were concluded with Fléchard. My more probing question as to how much the Fléchard firm received in Community subsidies for exports to third countries has failed so far to elicit a response from the Commissioner for the Budget. I would therefore ask you once again, Madam Commissioner, whether it is true that the Fléchard firm received around FF 29 million for export reimbursements in 1996 alone, around FF 105 million in 1997, and FF 72 million in 1998? Why did you not provide us with this information earlier? Are you unwilling to cooperate or did your own colleagues leave you in the dark? I read in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung this morning that you wrote to Mr Schmidhuber, the former Commissioner for the Budget. I am certain you will be hearing from him shortly. But Mrs Schreyer, I would very much like to have heard from you, rather than the press, as to when you are actually going to respond to my questions. When are you going to provide us with the figures that you promised more than a month ago to the Committee on Budgetary Control? Do you still stand by your statement that at the time, there were no grounds for involving the Fléchard firm, even though Commissioner Schmidhuber had raised the same question? Have you ever asked your fellow Commissioner Mr Lamy why none of Mr Schmidhuber’s representatives were invited to the meeting on 7 January 1994 in his office? I have also put this question to Mr Lamy in writing but have not received an answer. Mrs Schreyer, I do not expect you to answer my questions any differently to the way in which you answer those put to you by Mrs Morgan, for example, who, as I have now seen, received detailed answers from you on 23 June, or do you perhaps apply different standards to the way you answer letters from delegates? Stonewalling and appeasement do not, I feel, constitute a sound strategy. It is not just the European citizen that rightly asks cui bono? (what is the good of this). We expect you to be consistent as regards the promised changes to the disciplinary procedures and the reorganisation of internal financial control. This must not lead to a de facto abolition of financial control on account of decentralisation. It is recommended that the Commission be granted discharge for the 1998 financial year. However, as I see it, this discharge implies a weighty responsibility on the part of the Commission. I can only hope that you give Parliament’s new act of faith due recognition, and would urge you to do so. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE