Mr President, I would like to spend my last three minutes talking about this year’s major issues. I will start off with the Scandinavian countries. The administration of the Stockholm office has proved to be scandalous. We have to wait for the outcome of the disciplinary inquiry. However, I would like to ask the Commission when this will be concluded, and I should also like to know whether the Commission has taken measures to suspend staff after reading the OLAF report? As Niels Busk stated, there have also been considerable problems in Denmark. The problem with the guarantee payments in Denmark, which has not yet been settled, is an absolute disgrace. Being a Danish rapporteur, it is embarrassing to say so, but it is a fact. With regard to the flax issue in Spain, I am very delighted that a compromise was successfully reached. I have tried not to get involved in an internal Spanish quarrel. I examined whether the Commission had failed to fulfil its monitoring role, and I do not think this is the case here. However, I should like to thank my Spanish colleagues on both sides for their willingness to cooperate and for the fact that they appreciate the different views. I should like to mention the ‘Fléchard case’ which has been at the centre of discussion this year. We shall never discover more than we know now. We have set up a special committee, we have sent out additional questionnaires to the Commission and we have invited five new and former Commissioners to a consultation in the committee. OLAF, the expert committee and the Court of Auditors have looked at the case. And what did we learn? We learned that the Delors Commission made a decision for which there was no legal basis. Under no circumstances was there a legal basis for reducing the penalty from six to three million. That was the conclusion of the Court of Auditors, the expert group and OLAF. The Commission reacted, perhaps under pressure from the French government, and turned somersaults to save a company which had most likely even been involved in the fraudulent activities from the beginning. This was just not discovered as there was no thorough investigation of the case. The conclusions of the meeting at which the decisions were made were never put down in writing and cannot now be reconstructed. OLAF has just completed a very thorough investigation, and its conclusions are clear: The files will never be found. If OLAF cannot find them, then how should MEPs be able to? Now we must look ahead, and I am extremely pleased that Mrs Schreyer stated so clearly that there will be no repetition of the ‘Fléchard case’. For the first time, the new Commission has admitted that the decision to reduce the penalty was perfectly open to criticism and that a more thorough investigation should have been carried out. They have also promised to change the rules so that officials will not be able to make that type of decision in the future. I therefore think we should consider closing the case and then devote our energy to holding the Commission to its promises. Finally, I should like to thank everyone who has been involved in doing a really great job: the Commission, the staff of the Commission and our people in Parliament. Mr Asadbeg and Mrs Marina Buk Kristensen, in particular, have done an excellent job. Thank you very much. To my three colleagues, who do not wish to grant discharge, I would like to say that it would really have worried me if they had said that they wanted to grant discharge. That would have meant that my report was not good enough. For some people it is a way of life to be at cross purposes and oppose everything. That is fine, and I accept that, as I also accept them as very good colleagues. It is quite all right that three groups should be voting against this report, in which case the rest of us will take responsibility. (Applause)

Political group: PSE