Mr President, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we all prize very highly – and rightly so – Article 41 enshrines a right to good administration. Now one might think it should be a matter of course here in Europe that each Member State has a fair and impartial administration which looks after the interests of its citizens. In the specific field of budgetary administration, virtues such as thrift, efficiency, probity and reliability are, of course, particularly desirable. The fact is, however, that, for the eighth time in succession, the European Court of Auditors has refused to issue a statement of assurance to the Commission attesting that the latter has managed European taxpayers’ money prudently and thriftily. The accounting deficiencies that a courageous woman, a senior official in the Commission, brought to light in the spring of 2002 are hair-raising, even to those with little knowledge of accountancy. For ten years the Commission had not conducted a cash audit. At Eurostat, the European Statistical Office, preferential treatment and mismanagement have evidently been the order of the day, with a devastating impact on the Community Budget. In spite of all this, the Commission sees no need to take decisive remedial action. On the contrary, officials who expose deficiencies rather than being prepared to conceal them are sidelined and hit with disciplinary proceedings. In this way – and I am addressing these words especially to the Commissioner – the Commission is not doing its job. If Parliament, as the supervisory authority, tolerates this, we too are failing in our duty. I am saying this so explicitly because I am a convinced European and because I want this Europe to have a future and to win the trust of the general public out there. When it comes to administering its own budget, I believe that the European Parliament must act in an exemplary manner. It just leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth when we in this House always discharge ourselves or our own Secretary-General. I really think it ought to be done by another institution. Let me turn now, however, to the details of the report on Parliament. The highlighted shortcomings have largely been familiar to us for a long time. Staffing decisions must be made more transparent, and the awarding of contracts must be beyond reproach. On behalf of my group I firmly support these demands that are made in the report. And it does seem to me that decisions on the purchase and construction of buildings, particularly in our Brussels base, are not always open to scrutiny. As for the discharge of the three agencies, we rightly express concern at the fact that their responsibilities can still overlap and that duplication of effort can still occur. The adaptation of their responsibilities to the requirements of an enlarged EU likewise remains unsatisfactory. The conclusion of consultancy contracts by private treaty by the body known as the Kosovo Agency, involving in one case a monthly fee in excess of EUR 25 000, was evidently the result of pressure from the Commission – a pernicious influence, in my opinion, which casts an alarming light on the Commission’s dealings with agencies in general. I wonder whether it is even necessary to have these agencies popping up like mushrooms all over Europe. Is there any reason why every single Member State should host at least one of these bodies? Can we afford these bodies, and do we need them at all? The Commission, I believe, uses them to fob off responsibility, but then interferes arbitrarily in their business in specific cases. This brings the work of the agencies into disrepute, and we in Parliament should therefore resolutely oppose any policy of externalisation, in other words the contracting out to other bodies of tasks incumbent upon the Commission, a policy touted by the Council and the Commission as the way ahead.

Political group: PPE-DE