Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.3.2-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, fellow Members, Mrs Schreyer, Mr Fischler, I should like to make one thing clear from the outset: postponing a discharge is not tantamount to refusing a discharge, irrespective of what is always wrongly assumed. On the other hand, granting discharge is a serious procedure with serious consequences in that the controlling body answers for the fact that the activities and financial conduct of the body being controlled have been correct from a legal, economic and political point of view. This responsibility on the part of Parliament vis-à-vis European citizens and taxpayers is a heavy burden, which is why discharge for the Commission’s management of the budget cannot be reduced to a compulsory, but somewhat tiresome annual exercise and I am sorry that the President of the Commission could not be here today.
On the contrary, what is needed is a thorough examination on the basis of pertinent sources of information and a conscientious appraisal of the results. And that is what we have done in the Committee on Budgetary Control over recent weeks. The rapporteur, Mrs Stauner, and the draftsmen of the opinions of the other discharge reports and working documents, whom I should like to congratulate on their work, have based their work first and foremost on the annual and special reports of the Court of Auditors and on the Commission’s replies.
The sources for the information and documents needed from the Commission, on the other hand, gushed little, if anything at all, despite a great deal of paper and, unfortunately, no clear answers were given to the questions asked. When the Commission then writes to complain about the questionnaires and working papers of the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, that shows that something has gone wrong with the flow of information between the controlling and the controlled parties and this must be rectified as quickly as possible. We are working on that. Mrs Schreyer also mentioned it. However, I am warning you that the Commission is heading straight for the same fate as its predecessor.
According to Article 276 of the Treaty, Parliament, and hence the Committee appointed by it, is entitled to any information or documents which it needs or demands in order to prepare its discharge. This includes reappraising old cases. The rapporteur quotes four cases by way of example. Other cases should be on the list, but the Commission has unfortunately not yet passed them on, despite the date of March 2000 set in the 1997 discharge. Here too the Commission misunderstands our basic cause for concern. The rapporteur and the Committee on Budgetary Control are not holding the present Commission per se responsible for the deplorable state of affairs in previous years.
The resignation of the previous Commission did not put an end to it. On the contrary, the new Commission was completely aware of all the outstanding accusations before it entered office and it undertook to assume responsibility and establish transparency. I take this to mean that it must clear up all the old cases without exception and – where necessary – must pass them to the courts. Cover-ups or even sweeping issues under the carpet are not the answer. On the contrary, the answer means being prepared to draw conclusions from the unhappy events of the past, so that the same thing does not happen again in the future. This ranges from precise filing rules, so that documents cannot simply disappear, to a fundamental reform of disciplinary proceedings and much else besides.
This approach also informs the White Paper on the reform of the Commission tabled by Mr Kinnock. Mrs Stauner’s report lists our short-term demands with respect to these conclusions and we all consider that they can be met by the stated deadline. The Committee debated them at several meetings and finally adopted them with one vote against. Here we must thank the rapporteur for her honesty, on the one hand, and for her perfect readiness to compromise, on the other. One of the most important objectives that we consider the Commission should achieve is to reduce the error rate in payments to well below the persistent figure of 5%. I know, Mrs Schreyer, that you have tabled an action plan. Nonetheless, the error rate has remained at the same high level for the last five years. We shall have to debate this.
However, we also know that most errors occur in the Member States and we are prepared, as a committee, to discuss this with you. Nonetheless, we take the view and the Treaty states that the Commission is responsible for implementing the overall budget. Excuses and promises are no use. We need clear proof of improvement. On balance, my conclusion is that we need a strong Commission, which is able to act, which works openly together with Parliament and which supplies Parliament with all the information needed or requested.
Using the pressure of postponement to advance discharge is constructive pressure because it gives the Commission the chance to clear up shortcomings caused by slowness, pettifogging or unwillingness so that Parliament will be able to grant discharge for 1998 as quickly as possible, hopefully before the summer recess. I think that the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, should direct his team forcefully here in order to take transparency in Europe a stage further."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples