Mr President, the low turnout at the elections might well give people the impression that this Parliament has little say. Nothing could be further from the truth, as is once again borne out in the annual discharge debate. The dismissal of the Santer Commission was the turning point in the Union’s financial management. Whilst the Council granted discharge to the same Santer Commission unthinkingly, this Parliament did take its responsibilities seriously. Not only has this increased the political weight of discharge, at the same time, a U-turn has taken place from a bookkeeper’s mentality to one which is focused on content and effectiveness. The representative body of the people should not only ensure that all receipts are in, but should also check whether the tax money has been spent wisely and whether a result has been achieved. In this respect, assistance from the European Court of Auditors is at hand. However, the Committee on Budgetary Control believes that the monitoring procedure could be far more effective still. For that to happen, the Court of Auditors would need to embark on a consistent naming and shaming, in other words the public pillorying of those Member States who fail to get their act together. In addition, we would like to see the percentage of errors at national and sectoral level clearly quantified in order to gain a better insight into the problems which spending entails. Should this not be possible this year, then the Court of Auditors should in any case draw a distinction between major and minor errors when introducing a so-called Richter scale of errors. Furthermore, the Court of Auditors must realise that it is not above the law itself. It should stop resisting a true audit on itself and must publicise its financial interests on the Internet. Unfortunately, we have to establish time and again that Europeans, whether they hail from north or south, east or west, have little faith in the European Union’s bookkeeping. It is the costly duty of each and everyone who is involved in the financial monitoring of the European expenditure to win back the confidence of the European citizens. This confidence is a pre-condition for the further political success of European integration, and that confidence can only be regained by maximum transparency. The Europeans want certainty that their money is being spent in the best possible way, and where that is not the case, that the organisations and Member States involved are actually called to account. There is another institution – quite a major one at that – which believes that it stands above the supervisory power of the EP: the Council of Ministers, which was once again of the opinion that its presence was not required today. Via a so-called gentlemen’s agreement, Parliament and the Council have agreed not to monitor each other’s spending. This was done in the spirit of ‘If you do not check me out, then I will not cast a critical eye at you either’. Needless to say, this hardly contributes to restoring public confidence. As long as this approach involved purely administrative expenditure, this was perhaps justifiable to some extent. However, we now see that the Council is assuming further operational responsibilities. Not only does this undermine the position of the Commission, it is also subject to little democratic control. This is why the Committee on Budgetary Control has reached the conclusion that the agreement is due for an overhaul. The Court of Auditors must report on the Council’s spending in the same way as it does for other institutions. The surreptitious manner in which the Council is drawing power towards itself without accounting for it contravenes all basic principles of democracy. Budgetary legislation, and powers concerning budgetary control, have always been strong weapons for this Parliament when it came to plugging the different democratic holes. We owe it to our electorate, where possible, to exercise democratic control. Especially in the case of the Council, where the democratic hole is the biggest and is only threatening to get bigger, this form of control is crucial. Also as a message from this Parliament to other institutions, this is, therefore, an important choice to make. I can be brief about the committees and agencies. Europe is still under construction and is, as all dynamic processes, subject to change. It is thus no longer logical to scrutinise structures from time to time in the light of all the changes. All European institutions must continue to demonstrate their added value. They must ensure that the money of the European taxpayer is spent wisely. How do they impact on legislation? Do they operate efficiently? It is, naturally, regrettable that the discharge of the Economic and Social Committee has been postponed for the fourth consecutive time due to deception involving non-existing airline tickets. We should really close this chapter once and for all. All that remains for me is to congratulate the many honourable Members who have been involved in the discharge, on their reports. The Committee on Budgetary Control has mainly adopted a restrained and intelligent stance by granting discharge to the Commission, but under strict conditions. We are stepping up the pressure to bring about reforms within this Parliament too. Only if we subject our own actions to the same strict requirements which we impose on other institutions, will we remain a credible reform mechanism.

Political group: ELDR