Mr President, like many, I am pleased to have a document which will undoubtedly be useful in the process of administrative reform which the Commission must undergo, unavoidably, in the short-term. Commissioner Kinnock will no doubt be delighted to have this guide and, perhaps, alibi. However, apart from this shared sentiment, I am also pleased for other reasons. In particular, because I hope it will put an end to the unhealthy climate which is stifling the discussion of Community matters. Too often, the unavoidable and laudable concern for good management and the fight against fraud has been manipulated and used in demagogic and hypocritical operations, deliberately aimed at the discrediting of the European Institutions and even the European project itself. Well-intentioned colleagues have fallen naively into this anti-European trap. I confess that, having seen the product issued to us by the Committee of Independent Experts, my initial doubts remain with regard to whether its appointment did not basically illustrate a certain recognition of the inability of our own systems of control and political orientation. I trust that the voters will not demand to know who is responsible for the cost of the report given that, as well as penetrating observations, I have noted the presence of obvious remarks, various “re-discoveries of the wheel” and a wide use of our own documents. Although my mental hygiene rules for the weekends have stopped me from dedicating the hours to my reading of the report which it no doubt deserves, I believe that it has an additional virtue little appreciated by my predecessors, if I may use that word. In many points, it takes up positions of Parliament and proposals which were not favoured in their day. It is to be hoped that now, endorsed by independent and well paid experts, they will be better treated. Some of our colleagues have dedicated dithyrambic eulogies to the report, which we might have been spared had they paid more attention to the work of the Committee on Budgetary Control or had they not voted against some of our suggestions. Do not oblige me to mention any names, but I do not have to look far to see people in these very seats who now applaud the proposal to create a European Public Prosecutor, but who had no hesitation in voting against it when Mrs Theato and myself proposed it a couple of years ago, anticipating that this would require going ahead with the creation of a European judicial area and amending the Treaties. A new Financial Regulation. Enough of patching up and “updating” processes. Excellent. I have spent fourteen years in the Committee on Budgetary Control and, without delving into my archives, I can remember four resolutions of the Plenum in which this very thing was demanded. I requested it myself from this bench last year from Commissioner Liikanen on behalf of the Socialist Group. Time is at a premium and I would like to highlight a couple of observations which are important, if not fundamental. Firstly, the Committee of Independent Experts recognises that, in spite of the fact that ultimate responsibility for management falls to the Commission, we should not forget that Member State administrations handle more than 80% of the Community budget and that their attitude towards fraud is not always diligent, although their Ministers do protest about Community management. They have clearly read Mr Brinkhorst’s working document of May last year. Secondly, in its final observation 8.1, the committee highlights that the Commission must be provided with the resources necessary for its responsibilities and stipulates that it is not only referring to those laid down in the Regulations. It is de facto alluding to the possible hypocrisy and incoherence of the budgetary authorities. And lastly, chapter 5 refers to “whistle-blowers”. Before anybody proposes the restoration of torture in the investigative processes, I would ask, please, that the defence of the accused be attended to.

Political group: PSE