Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.3.2-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I was responsible for the research section of the part of the report by my fellow member, Gabriele Stauner, relating to internal policy. I was perfectly aware of its importance. However, what we could not foresee was that, with the vote on the overall report, outbursts very similar to those at the time of the refusal of discharge for 1996 would occur once again. To refer to the corresponding passages on research, I also make a statement on what have deliberately and disparagingly been referred to on occasions as old cases. Old cases are not the same as obsolete cases; they are an outstanding burden which the Commission must finally remove from our shoulders.
The Court of Auditors highlighted a series of shortcomings in the research area in 1998. It complained about the pre-dating of contracts and a high overall error rate in payment audits due to incorrect proof of or information on costs, an error rate for which the Commission is perhaps not 100% responsible, but is at least 90% responsible. There is the old case of visiting scientist B and how his contract came into being. They also include the internal audit report drafted in 1997 on the area of jurisdiction of the former Commissioner for Research, Mrs Cresson. This report disappeared from the filing cabinet at the end of 1999/beginning of 2000. At the same time, there was the so-called European nuclear affair. Who then is going to be surprised that a link between the financial controller’s filing cabinet and the roaming plutonium was established at the end of 1999?
We might be satisfied with some of the explanations that the Commission offers for these incidents. Having spoken on many occasions, I am pleased to say, with trustworthy Commission officials, I have the impression that they are ready and willing to make corrections. As are we. But mistakes have been made and the audit was organised as politely as when an auditor visits a company. However, it was the Court of Auditors that carried out the audit, an institution that has no form of personal interest in the matter and it is no good playing down the mistakes. If, nonetheless, the rapporteur takes the view today that these cases have not been solved properly, then I would like to side with her fully and unreservedly, as did the Committee on Budgetary Control with just one vote against.
I call on the Commission to immediately give us satisfactory answers, which stand up in public. Then everyone will have a true picture. Questions can hurt. We asked them because mistrust and criticism have been spreading since the refusal of the 1996 discharge. But what matter are the results which will be presented on 15 May."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples