Mr President, Parliament’s refusal last year to grant discharge on the 1996 budgetary year heralded the fall of the Santer Commission. Parliament employed its powers in a sound manner under special circumstances. A college of Commissioners, which has since been appointed, has presented an ambitious reform programme. Last year’s opposition from the Commission to Parliament has now developed into good working relations. Needless to say, Parliament needs to keep a critical eye on the Commission. It is unseemly, however, to deploy the discharge procedure as a weapon in a party-politically motivated battle and, what is more, it undermines Parliament’s influence in the long run. Mrs Stauner’s motion for a resolution, which was before us initially was, in this respect, unbalanced. It over-simplified the issue and its sole aim appeared to be to malign the new Commission. Her motion for a resolution contained damning accusations regarding the Commission which, as it happens, did not even relate to the 1998 budget year. Meanwhile, the motion for a resolution has been amended drastically and the suggestion was made to postpone the discharge decision. The Commission is being given the opportunity of responding to a number of urgent questions raised and requests made by Parliament before 15 May. I would like to single out one point from among these questions and requests. Over the past year, it has become clear that the Commission’s disciplinary procedure does not function properly. In countless cases, no action was taken or if it was, it did not lead to any result. The procedure needs to be completely overhauled. The Commission has made suggestions to this effect in its White Paper. However, these suggestions do not go far enough. The Committee of Independent Experts has recommended the appointment of an independent outsider, preferably in the role of chairman of the Disciplinary Committee. Parliament supported this proposal in January and does so once again by means of this motion for a resolution. I would ask the Commission to reconsider its position. The European Parliament’s financial situation has been the subject of extensive media coverage over the past few weeks. Mr Kuhne has drawn up a report on this subject, on which I would like to warmly congratulate him. He did not let himself be talked into adjusting his well-balanced approach in the face of sometimes heated publications. The Kuhne report proposes granting Parliament discharge, provided a number of well-defined requirements are met. For example, the offices of Parliament are expected, from now on, to offer, in the majority of cases, contracts for tender which are public in nature. In addition, Parliament needs to indicate when the reform process which is being launched within the Commission will start taking effect in Parliament. One of the key proposals is to separate the audit and financial control functions. The Commission has already indicated that it will submit proposals to this effect before the summer. I am of the opinion that such separation should also take place within Parliament. An independent parliamentary audit office needs to be set up as soon as possible whose task is to ensure the effectiveness of public spending by Parliament. Such an office should make annual – and if necessary, more frequent – recommendations regarding the working method of Parliament’s offices. Only when Parliament has its own financial housekeeping in order will it gain credibility when it comes to assessing and sometimes condemning the Commission and Member States.

Political group: PSE