Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-13-Speech-1-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001113.7.1-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the importance that you have attached to the Court of Auditors’ special report on the FAIR Programme. I would particularly like to thank Mrs Langenhagen for her very constructive report, along with the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, and of the Committee on Fisheries and notably the rapporteur, Mr Busk.
It is clear that this consortium approach does not establish a duality in terms of joint financial responsibility. This is a complex matter and one of the issues for which we must clearly find a way of ensuring greater security, but we must avoid this resulting in the exclusion from the framework programme of SMEs and public institutions who are fearful of having to accept responsibilities that they are unable to assume. We thus need not only to strike the right balance in terms of joint financial responsibility but also, furthermore, to avoid scaring off potential
partners in a consortium, the only participants in which will therefore be established bodies, when what we want is to foster the participation of small and medium-sized businesses.
On the other hand, I share your views entirely on the need to minimise the risk of double financing. In this regard, you should know that in connection with point 74 of the White Paper on Reform, the Commission’s services are already in the process of introducing a central register of contracts concluded by the Commission, which will subsequently be linked to all the Commission’s financial information systems.
You have evidently raised other issues too, including the problem that Mrs Langenhagen referred to in her introduction: the time that has elapsed between the sector letters being sent and the report being debated in Parliament, the length of which can be attributed to the working relations between the Commission and the Court of Auditors. As you have emphasised, all this happened several years ago, but it is clear that lessons must be learned from this exercise. Since that time, measures have been taken regarding the internal organisation of our services in order to speed up, within the limits of the possible, the Court’s sector letter procedure. It is perfectly clear that these dialogues are necessary and there is clearly a joint responsibility here; it is also up to the Court to enter into these dialogues, but I can, in any case, assure you that both the Court and the Commission’s services, along with Parliament, share the same commitment to progress in terms of resolving these problems.
I will now turn to the question that Mrs Morgan asked concerning the recovery of amounts. There are a total of 3.4 million euros outstanding. This may seem a substantial sum, but it in fact only represents 0.3% of total financing under
the programme. This does not mean, of course, that this sum should not be recovered, and we must strive to do so. I can tell you, in this respect, that the Commission’s services have done everything within their power to recover the amounts in question, but the services responsible embarked on the appropriate legal procedures two years ago. Legal proceedings have now begun concerning two of the three files examined by the Commission’s legal service, since these have been referred to the national courts. The process is therefore under way, but we are now entering the domain of Member State jurisdiction and cannot always dictate how long things will take. I would nevertheless stress that the three files that I have just mentioned represent 92% of the total amount. We have therefore worked very hard to recover the 3.4 million euros, and one could say that we are over 90% of the way there.
Turning to the question concerning fisheries, and the person responsible for their control, I have just been given an answer. It has been assigned to the most appropriate level. As far as the Agriculture DG is concerned, the problem has been resolved by transferring the relevant team to the Directorate-General for Research. This has made for a smoother coordination of policies.
These are the answers to your questions. There are still some new applications to put into practice, and I would like to take this opportunity to outline the guidelines on Community research that we would like to develop for the next framework programme, and which the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has already examined, since I sent a policy paper to this Parliamentary Committee on 4 October, and it is to draw up a report. There are several factors in these broad guidelines that will make for a considerable lightening of bureaucratic burdens: the switch from a project-based approach to a programme-based approach, the setting of minimum sizes for projects, the externalisation of a number of activities, such as exploratory premiums for small and medium-sized enterprises, mobility grants and, in general terms, a simplification of these procedures.
Substantial changes must also be introduced into the next framework programme. We will see what the impact of the modifications made to the fifth Framework Programme has been and I would like to thank you for showing such commitment to improvement. The Commission shares this commitment, and I would like to hope that we can work in the best possible atmosphere to carry through this research programme, which is essential at European level, but which must be implemented in conformity with the most stringent of rules on efficiency and on financial control.
You have underscored, and I would thank you for this, the spirit underlying this report, in your dialogue with the Court of Auditors and the Commission’s services and in the value you attached to it. As you have also said, the FAIR Programme formed part of the Fourth Framework Programme. It had come to an end by the time I took up my duties as Commissioner, but it is the responsibility of the present Commission, and my responsibility as Commissioner, to ensure that the lessons learned from your work are turned to good account and to respond to the Court of Auditors’ recommendations on this issue.
The report will play its part in the appraisal of the way the situation is developing and of working practices. I must nevertheless emphasise that no instances of fraud or misappropriation have been detected. It is important to point this out, as these things can sometimes be misinterpreted. It is important to express ourselves clearly vis-à-vis the outside world. As you have emphasised, the FAIR Programme is financed to the tune of 739 million euros. It has given rise to over 3 300 proposals, more than 600 of which have received funding. The FAIR Programme was also swiftly called into action at the start of the ‘mad cow’ crisis and a European action plan on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies was launched in the very same year following a call for proposals. My point is that it has played a beneficial role in addressing a number of issues.
What were the questions asked, and what improvements have already been made? I would like to highlight some of the latter, which have already been incorporated into the Fifth Framework Programme, in line with the Court’s recommendations. First of all, you should know that responsibility for managing agricultural research has been transferred to the Agriculture DG and the Research DG, following the reorganisation of the Commission’s services, which has resulted in a degree of uniformity in the Agriculture DG’s research procedures. The same may not apply to research in the field of fisheries, but it has been the case with agriculture.
Next, to ensure smooth coordination, a management group has been set up to ensure better coordination between the implementation of research programmes and the relevant Directorates-General with responsibility for other policies.
Thirdly, the Commission has adopted a common procedure for the evaluation of research proposals applicable to all the specific programmes, which can be consulted by the public in the common manual of evaluation procedures. A common, transparent database of experts has been established to evaluate proposals and special efforts have been made to ensure the independence of experts in respect of the evaluation of proposals. A common research database has been established. The new type of research contract now sets out in detail all the financial and administrative considerations, with more clearly-defined responsibilities for participants and a better-documented negotiation procedure. The Commission has also significantly increased the number of audits conducted, with this number rising by 25% annually over recent years. These are the measures that have been envisaged under the Fifth Framework Programme and which are to be implemented.
However, as soon as I took up office, I also took an initiative to set up an informal working party which looked into the issue of simplifying and improving procedures, and I have already had an opportunity to talk about this before the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. This shows that the Commission has not been idle and that it is acting on the comments that you have made. One has to be aware of the way the situation is developing, and remain vigilant, because it is difficult to attain perfection in this matter. This is all the more true given that the report brought to light a number of issues that called for improvements, as you have emphasised.
I will take up on some of these issues, and let you have our opinion on these. With regard to the annual monitoring of research programmes, which provides an independent opinion on the stage reached in, and the quality of, the implementation of our programmes, we have developed several measures aimed at improvement: an analysis of research management practices within the context of national and European Union programmes, with a view to exchanges of good practices and the promotion of mutual learning; the financing of studies aimed at assessing the socio-economic impact of the framework programme and the launching of pilot schemes aimed at evaluating the impact of completed projects, as you have, moreover, just emphasised in speaking of the need to gauge this impact.
Like the Commission, Parliament is of the opinion that joint responsibility for the implementation of the projects is closely akin to a joint financial responsibility. I would nevertheless like to stress one thing, which is that joint financial responsibility cannot, in a strict sense, be envisaged within the context of the framework programme, the aim of which is to set up consortia composed of various bodies, universities, SMEs, large companies, and public or private research institutes. These entities will not be able to take adequate financial precautions from among their own ranks, and in the case of the SMEs cannot necessarily be held liable for the insolvency of other members of the consortium."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples