Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Ombudsman most warmly on the work which he and his colleagues carried out in 2000, and would like to lay before you some figures to emphasise these congratulations and this esteem, and which underline how this People's Advocate has become an institution whose absence from the European scene can no longer even be contemplated. In 1995 there were only 298 complaints; in 2000, to which my report refers, there were by contrast 1732. There were of course many cases which, in the final analysis, were not within the remit of the European Ombudsman. However, the excellent networking of the European Ombudsman, which is to be further intensified in the future, resulted in the cases and complaints in question being passed on to the appropriate agencies. An Ombudsman is there, after all, for the citizens, and there is sometimes confusion about who is responsible for what. The Ombudsman has already addressed many of the points made in my report. The ever shortening turnaround times are greatly to be welcomed; here, the Ombudsman is an example of good administrative practice on a European scale. Eighty-three per cent of complaints were against the Commission. I do not wish to make this an accusation levelled at the Commission; the division of competencies makes it quite obvious who is most going to be complained about. What I, however, find interesting is what the complaints focus on. In 28% of cases, it is a lack of transparency or the withholding of information, and in 24% avoidable delays. Over half the complaints, therefore, focus on these two areas. What this is about, Commissioner, is good governance. It is precisely in these areas that we could improve European administration at no cost whatever. However, I consider it quite remarkable – and this is something that must be said very clearly in a Parliament such as this – that those at the top of the Commission have neglected to consult the European expert on good governance – namely the Ombudsman – about the White Paper on the subject. So I must ask you, Commissioner, how seriously you are taking the improvement of administration across Europe. We do not need White Papers, we have an Ombudsman who gets complaints from our fellow citizens every year. All that is needed is willingness; not repeated postponement and the commissioning of reforms and White Papers and studies and who knows what else; what we need is different administration. That is perfectly clear from this report, in whose appendix I have taken the opportunity to discuss specific examples. There is an instance, Commissioner, of a submarine. You will be well aware of what significance submarines had for the previous Commission and what the consequences were. If the European Ombudsman needs to intervene nearly a dozen times in order to get the Commission to certify that such a submarine had work done on it, then that tells you something about the new Commission. If this Commission took until 2000 to concede that submarines existed, then whom are you trying to convince that this Commission is willing to take transparency and – let me say this as a Socialist – the protection of employees' rights in Europe seriously? I really would like our Ombudsman to follow up instances like this rather more stringently in order to give them the critical attention they deserve, for the alternative would be undiluted flattery, credible to nobody. Mr Södermann, I would again ask you, as I did in the report, to consider presenting a special report on the issue of access to documents and data. Otherwise, I can only repeat my thanks to you for your work. In these thanks I wish to include your colleagues. I believe your work has become a quite central building block for the further development of the European Union, and I hope that it will continue as it has begun. (Applause)

Political group: PSE