Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-333"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.13.3-333"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur. I have a feeling that these kinds of topic, and this report, are right up his street, and I would almost go so far as to say that it is not a coincidence that this sitting is so well attended this evening.
The proposal under discussion is a direct result of the report by the Committee of Independent Experts. An internal control service is to be set up. Yet, my group feels it is too early at this stage to make a final decision on centralised ex ante control or decentralised ex ante control within the Directorates-General themselves. We need to give this some more thought and weigh up the pros and cons very carefully. I also believe that, as far as this is concerned, we need the advice from the European Court of Auditors. We cannot make a decision until we have the proposal on the new financial regulations, and within the framework of the discussion on these new regulations, a number of aspects will need to be laid down definitively.
We will be backing all amendments which help clarify the division between financial control and internal audits, as currently proposed. We are also in favour of providing information more effectively. In our view, there is one note of discord in the report, although this is not the view of the entire group, and that is the question: should internal control only be set up in respect of the Commission, the Council and Parliament, or should it also extend to smaller institutions? In my opinion, it should also apply to smaller institutions. This may not be practical – it is indeed the case that only a few people deal with financial control in those institutions, but the principle that the person who gives ex ante approval also self-assesses after the event is wrong. These two activities should always remain separate. This also applies to smaller institutions even though they have fewer staff. If we lay something down for large institutions, the neutrality principle proposed by the Committee of Independent Experts should then apply across the board. I am not in favour of making any exceptions to this rule.
Otherwise, my group is able to support all the rapporteur’s amendments, especially those which stipulate that annual progress reports should be compiled. Public opinion is so sensitive in this area that I feel this Parliament should deal with this topic every year, and not only at the discharge stage. It should also deal with the question of how matters can be improved in terms of control, and, in the light of public opinion, we cannot do enough about this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples