Madam President, with that long list you make it sound as though I have been extremely busy. I would like to concentrate on those institutions that you have just mentioned. The exercise, of course, considers the expenditure, and assesses the effective use of European taxpayers' money relating to those institutions. There is also reference in this report to the Council, which I will touch on later. Generally speaking there were no great concerns relating to the Court of Justice although we will clearly be following up some of the requests we have made to it on more detailed issues. We grant discharge to the Court of Justice. The Court of Auditors seems still reluctant to name Member States found wanting, and I warn the Court again that we will not rest until this request is complied with. More consumer-friendly reports would be welcome, as would a declaration of interests by the Court on the Internet, as is currently carried out by most of the other institutions. The Court must never feel itself to be too grand to conform to the standards we have learned to expect from other high-profile public servants. We grant discharge to the Court of Auditors, however. The new Ombudsman budget is very small, so any money not spent will perhaps be disproportionally reflected in percentage figures, but it is something that the Budget Committee needs to keep an eye on when they are setting the Ombudsman's budget. We grant discharge to the Ombudsman. The Committee of the Regions is also a relative newcomer to the European scene. It is good to see some shared expenditure with the Economic and Social Committee although at times this does not go far enough. A future report by the Committee on Budgetary Control may perhaps examine the value for money and impact assessment of this institution. Both the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions performed quite well in relation to the Belliard and Montoyer buildings and played quite a good game with the poor set of cards that were dealt to them unfairly by Parliament. We grant discharge to the Committee of the Regions. I turn now to the area where the report's focus lies, and that is on the Economic and Social Committee: a committee which has been in existence since the beginning of this great project. Whilst the report recognises the Economic and Social Committee can act as a forum for interest groups which would otherwise not be able to make their voices heard in the EU context, developments over recent years – including, for example, the social protocol – must now be considered. Do we see some duplication here for example? We have concerns that the information does not filter down to the grass roots. The massive costs of financing this institution, which will reach almost EUR 100 million after enlargement, also gives us great concerns. Even amongst some trade unions, which are recognised by and which use the Institution, there is criticism. One prominent British trade union was prepared to say 'that the Economic and Social Committee appears to be redundant; we would be content for it to be abolished'. Another worrying aspect of the ESC came in their reaction to this report which claimed that the concept of value for money of a body established by the European Treaties is highly questionable and politically unjustifiable. Try telling that to the taxpayers of Europe! I think it is pretty obvious, when you see reactions like that, there is not much accountability going on within the Economic and Social Committee. The Budgetary Control Committee is recommending that discharge be refused to the Economic and Social Committee for the years 1996 and 1997. This is a historic move and it is not taken lightly. Only on two occasions before has the discharge been refused; once of course which led to the forced resignation of the Commission in 1999. It may perhaps seem strange that we have waited until now to assess the accounts and expenditure for 1996. However, it has taken until now to receive objective clarification on irregularities relating to payments of members' travel allowances. The whole sequence of events from the fraud itself involving 59 members of the Economic and Social Committee amounting to over EUR 1 million, to the scandalously relaxed attitude of Economic and Social Committee managers and their efforts to cover up the problem, to the botched and unprofessional approach of OLAF, the European Fraud Office, all reeks of incompetence, procrastination and amateurism. It has taken six years to get to the bottom of this fraud that occurred in 1996. This situation is a disgrace. It has meant that there has been no chance of prosecuting those involved, as the Courts have said that too much time has elapsed. There have been improvements since then however, which is why we do grant discharge to the Economic and Social Committee for 1998, 1999 and 2000. It is important that the Convention on the Future of Europe should take heed of the message in this report. I turn finally very briefly to the Council. Traditionally we have lumped this together with the Commission expenditure. This year, however, the Court of Auditors has prepared a critical report on the workings of the common foreign and security policy. This again is a fairly new area for the Council. The Committee on Budgetary Control has asked for answers and clarification on some of the issues on which the Court of Auditors has concerns. The Council is discussing that this morning, so we are waiting for the results from the Council before we take a vote on this. I hope you will bear that in mind when it comes to the vote. I hope that the Economic and Social Committee will deal with the fact that we have not given them discharge with the gravity that this issue deserves. (Applause) – 2000 Discharge: Decentralised bodies

Political group: PSE