Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.3.2-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today, for the second time this year, we are debating the discharge of the Commission for the budget of a previous financial year. Two and a half months ago, you granted the Commission discharge for the 1997 budget. That discharge was accompanied by numerous, far-reaching calls to the Commission which provided strong momentum and incentive for the reform of the Commission and which are incorporated in the Commission’s White Paper. I should like once again to extend my thanks on behalf of the Commission, especially to the rapporteur at the time, Mrs van der Laan and, in this context, to the rapporteur for the reforms, Mr van Hulten.
The Commission has made a commitment to transparency and openness. These are not just empty words as far as the Commission is concerned, which is why I have transferred all the confidential audit reports needed to the Committee on Budgetary Control, or rather to the rapporteur, during the course of the discharge procedure and which is why the Commission has also replied in detail to questionnaires, even though this differed from past reporting practice.
The Commission has nothing to hide and this Commission sees it as its duty to support Parliament fully in the performance of its duties. But we need a procedure which safeguards the confidentiality of information and, more importantly, the principle of the rule of law whereby people cannot be pre-judged. That must also apply to the Commission staff, just as it applies to people who belong to the other European institutions and to all our citizens.
The Commission is called on in the report adopted by the Committee on Budgetary Control to answer various questions or take direct action by 15 May. I should like to thank the Committee on Budgetary Control for this resolution and also for the deadline attached to it. Some of the points refer to dealing with so-called old cases, i.e. cases of irregularities or suspicion of fraud from previous years.
I should like to say quite clearly at this point that the Commission will do everything within its powers to fight fraud and that applies not only to the future, but to clearing up past cases. This Commission has no fear of any findings. The Commission has proven this in the so-called Cresson/Barthelot case by passing documents to the courts, introducing disciplinary proceedings, lifting the immunity of a former member of the Commission, giving the investigating magistrate access to the Commission premises and demanding repayment of missing EU funds.
But I repeat: for the Commission, the rule of law applies. This means that it cannot of course influence judicial proceedings, even if they are unsatisfactory, as for example in the ECHO case, on which the competent courts, which received the file a long time ago, have still taken no action. It also means that proportionality is required when meting out punishment and demanding refunds and this applies both to demands by the Commission and to refunds demanded by the Member States. The European Court of Justice again made that clear in its most recent judgement a few weeks ago, when it halved or even cancelled fines in the case of the cement cartel.
My colleague Franz Fischler will shortly be going into the question of the agricultural budget in connection with discharge in greater detail. But I too should like to say at this point that I do not see the letters drawing the Commission’s attention to the fact that companies may fold or jobs be destroyed following certain Commission measures as an illegal attempt at intervention, irrespective of whether the letters originate in Parliament or in a Member State and regardless of whether they come from France, Ireland or Bavaria.
Naturally, decisions must be taken where there is room for discretion and they must be taken according to clear rules and in a transparent manner. I shall fight for clear rules within the framework of the financial regulation. Of course the Commission will take very careful notice of the Court of Auditors’ recommendations and findings in the so-called Fléchard case and all I can say is that I, for my part, am very grateful to the Court of Auditors for taking on this task.
I am not in a position at this point to go into the individual points of the resolution in detail. However, the Commission will immediately notify OLAF of your demands and, as far as the administrative investigation is concerned, I have set the procedure of clarification in motion.
Your resolution insists first and foremost on a reduction in the error rate. I can assure you that the Commission is doing everything it can to achieve this, which is why we submitted the action plan, containing specific measures with specific deadlines and which is why we are completing revising the financial regulation and I shall shortly be reporting on this to Parliament. This is why the European Anti-Fraud Office is being reinforced. This is why the Commission has started reforming financial management as a whole by increasing the responsibility of everyone who handles the money of the European taxpayers, by improving efficiency and by setting the clear objective of restoring trust in the European institutions.
The Commission will do everything to ensure that the reform is a success and it would be a good thing if all the European institutions were to expose themselves to such reform.
Today we are debating the discharge for the 1998 financial year. Under the European Treaty, Parliament has a duty to audit the accounts, the statements of assets and the annual report of the Court of Auditors, together with the replies from the bodies being audited. In its report on the 1998 financial year, submitted in November last year, the Court of Auditors granted the Commission a declaration of assurance with regard to receipts and the handling of commitment appropriations.
The Court of Auditors did not grant the Commission an auditor’s certificate establishing that payments had been implemented in a lawful and proper manner. The error rate was considered to be too high by the Court of Auditors. As the Commissioner for the Budget, I subscribe fully to the opinion that, in some areas, the shortcomings in the implementation of the budget are simply unacceptable. That is why I immediately took the initiative, in my official capacity, of drafting an action plan listing specific measures sector by sector on the basis of a specific timetable, in order to reduce the number of errors identified.
Nearly 90% of all errors identified or highlighted by the Court of Auditors concern the Member States. The majority of payments out of the EU budget are paid not directly by the Brussels administration, but by administrative units in the Member States. This decentralised implementation of the budget has numerous advantages, but, of course, it also calls for efficient and close cooperation.
As rapporteur for the SEM 2000 programmes and decentralised management measures, Mr Kuhne has dealt with these questions in detail and I should like to thank him for his work in this area. The Council, which recommended discharge for the Commission, included the question of shared management in its debate on the 1998 budget discharge and the proposal was mooted that the Member States should perhaps set their own objective for reducing shortcomings in the implementation of EU funds, an interesting proposal.
For its part, the Commission will step up its efforts to formulate more manageable financial rules for the administrations in the Member States and to provide advice and information, especially on the control systems. Alternatively, should it prove necessary, the Commission will use financial corrections to refunds paid to Member States as a monetary lever, as is the case in agriculture. The fact that the error rate for agricultural expenditure is well below the error rate for the Structural Funds is perhaps due to this financial correction instrument. My colleague Franz Fischler will go into this in greater detail in a moment but I should like at this point to thank Mr Casaca for his report and to congratulate Mr Mulder on his report.
The Court of Auditors made no critical remarks on the budget for the European Coal and Steel Community and I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Khanbhai, for the report which he has just presented. The European Court of Auditors also issued a declaration of assurance for the budget of the European Development Fund, although it did find cause for complaint. Overall, there was a clear drop in the error rate for the Funds in comparison with previous years.
However, this gives the Commission no cause whatsoever for complacency. On the contrary, the Commission also wants to achieve more satisfactory results for this financing instrument, which is so important to development policy, and this applies in particular to the question of the speed of aid. You addressed this point, Mr van den Berg. This is also one of the concerns of the rapporteur for this area and I should like to thank you, Mrs Rühle, for your willingness to include the arguments of the Committee on Development and Cooperation and the Commission in your report and to propose an action plan and also, at this point, to thank Mr Blak for his preparatory work in this area.
The legislative, budgetary and control powers of the individual institutions overlap even more in the European Union than they do in the Member States. It is therefore essential that we act in unity if European policy is to work. This presupposes a clear and reliable division of tasks, which is why current talks and negotiations between Parliament and the Commission on the agreement, which also includes the question of access to and dealing with confidential information, are extremely important. The chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control, Mrs Theato, also has a very responsible role in this respect. It is in all our interests for these negotiations to come to a swift conclusion, hopefully with results which enable there to be a good policy and collaboration on such important matters as discharge."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples