Mr President, Commissioner, where criticism is called for, it must be expressed clearly. In the Committee on Budgetary Control it is our task to examine and evaluate the Commission’s accounts every year, and in this, the European Court of Auditors’ annual report gives us valuable guidance. We have also found points of criticism regarding the 2001 discharge and have formulated them in clear terms. I will leave the details, though, to those of my colleagues who have dealt with the institutions concerned in their reports. I would like to talk about something about which, for the most part, we can be pleased. As rapporteur for the budget of the European Coal and Steel Community I have few reservations about recommending discharge. We have here – and I almost regret that, in accordance with the Treaty, the ECSC expired last July after 50 years – an example of how it is perfectly possible to present a balanced and correct budget. When, only five years after the end of the war, France’s then Foreign Minister Robert Schuman suggested combining the coal and steel industries of France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries, he was both showing vision and taking a risk. With the major objective of a peaceful Europe in view, the ECSC was the first step towards a community of the states of Europe. Fifty years on, we can say it was a successful experiment, and, today in particular, I would like to draw attention to that peace-preserving plan, to understanding between nations. Apart from the industrial policy aspect, the ECSC also had from the outset a strong social side that should not be underestimated. Hundreds of thousands of coal and steel workers benefited from adjustment aids to cope with structural change. I would also like to mention the significant research aspect, for example to encourage innovative production techniques or develop environmentally friendly solutions. The gains have been estimated to be worth ten times the money invested, and that is good to hear. Following my in-depth research, let me put it like this: without the ECSC success story, we can be sure that some things in Europe would have gone differently and far less well. In my report I have reviewed the measures required to accompany the expiry of the ECSC’s activities. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the exemplary cooperation given by both the Court of Auditors and the Commission and their active willingness to provide the information requested. I would like to mention a few points which in my view nevertheless need to be addressed. Firstly, there should be a publication, a real publication worthy of the name, describing the work undertaken by the ECSC and its success story. Why should we not recognise successes when they occur and record them in writing for future generations? Secondly, the Commission must keep us informed about the redeployment of personnel – these people possess invaluable expertise, and we should not give it away or hide it. We also need detailed information, of course, about outstanding commitments, even after the ECSC Treaty has expired – some of which extend to the year 2027, with contributions for loans to officials, and, up to the year 2017, a commitment for Eurotunnel – and we need information about the cancellation of all amounts from the reserve, which clearly will no longer be needed in future. These are what is known as ‘dormant resources’. The ECSC – I am repeating myself – was a model for peace and progress in Europe. Even after it has expired, its spirit must live on. I am glad that, even after the ECSC has been wound up, there will be a research fund making an important contribution in the coal and steel sector, in which the candidate countries will also take part, and willingly so. I promise you, however, that we on the Committee on Budgetary Control will still be keeping our eyes open in this area in the future. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE