Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.3.2-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to thank Mr Garriga, Mr McCartin, Mr Staes and Mr Dell'Alba for their reports on the reports by the Court of Auditors, which total ten in all and cover the period 1999/2000, or were published in addition.
The Court of Auditors assessed the reform measures introduced in 1992 in the third Special Report on the effects on the cereals sector. The Commission used these measures as the basis for its own assessment. In the motion for a resolution, Parliament, and yourself, Mr McCartin, call for direct payments to be differentiated, in a bid to redress the currently uneven distribution of incomes between prosperous and less prosperous regions, but also between large and small farms. This would be possible subject to certain constraints, although not all Member States would accept it, and there is room for improvement here too.
You also address the important issue of cofinancing of direct aid in the report. We know what became of this matter in Agenda 2000. However, the Commission feels that this is another topic that must be brought up for discussion again in the course of the midterm review.
Very briefly on the subject of swine fever: the Commission is of the same mind as those who feel that after the last epidemic, there is an urgent need to revise the relevant legal provisions. It has therefore submitted proposals accordingly, and, has also restructured the Commission’s veterinary service as a result. The Commission would agree with you, Mr McCartin, that pig producers should carry a greater share of the financial burden of measures to combat animal diseases. In this connection, the Commission will carry out an investigation into risk management instruments in agriculture, the findings of which will be available in the next few months, and they are bound to be the subject of intense discussion in this House thereafter.
I will now turn to your report Mr Staes, for which the Commission is in your debt. In the period from 1996 to 1998, which is the period the Court of Auditor’s Special Report relates to, the Commission – and you acknowledged this – operated under extremely difficult political conditions on the ground.
You mention the extraordinary circumstances, particularly with regard to the financing of the open broadcasting network. Firstly, it was necessary for equipment of a very high quality to be made available for this network, and secondly, it was important to ensure that the transmission of information was of a very high quality too, with a view to preparing for the 1996 elections, and allowing for independent reporting. However, the Commission is forced to concede that, in many areas, there was much cause for criticism and so it has taken the appropriate steps.
I will go on to discuss the relationship between the EU as donor, and the Office of High Representative and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe as recipients of the financial aid. This relationship is indeed complex. The Commission has been reprimanded for quite a few administrative shortcomings, when the fault actually lies with the international organisations. It is not a case of denying responsibility. It just goes to show that there are even difficulties on the cooperation front sometimes, which are partly structural in nature. The Court of Auditors is now proposing, as it did back in its 1999 Annual Report, that international organisations should not be granted project financing but should be allowed budgetary grants instead. But how is the Commission supposed to support international organisations with an exclusively political mandate when these organisations find it difficult to properly implement the administrative and financial standards of Community aid programmes? Further talks and regulations are called for here.
On the subject of the repatriation of refugees and the construction of housing in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which also features in the report: the Commission was able, with the aid of projects financed by the PHARE and OBNOVA programmes, to achieve similar successes where rehousing is concerned to those of other donors. A criticism was raised in the 1999 Annual Report to the effect that there were shortcomings with regard to the repatriation of refugees, but this situation has now improved. I would also remind you once again that the Commission has learnt from all the errors committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina when it came to granting EU aid, and has taken the necessary steps, and it has also placed the administration of EU aid, for example in Kosovo, on an entirely different footing.
Turning now to the comprehensive report by Mr Dell'Alba, which concerns the principle of additionality as applied to the Structural Funds, industrial areas, youth employment initiatives, the International Fund for Ireland and the PEACE programme. Here, too, I must confine myself to a few remarks. The structural funds regulation of June 1999 now includes new provisions regarding the principle of the additionality of measures, which will hopefully help to ensure that, in future, there will be no more cause for the kind of criticism raised by the Court of Auditors about the previous support period, and the criteria will be clearer.
I have this to say about the Court of Auditor’s report on industrial areas: one of the key aspects of the 1999 reform of the structural funds has been the strengthening of the monitoring and assessment instruments, which will enable us to establish more effectively where the money goes to. The regulations now provide for a clearer distribution of responsibility between the Commission and the Member States.
Finally, permit me just to say a few words about the report on the PEACE programme. Parliament has expressed its profound concern at the often slow-moving materialisation of the PEACE programme in Northern Ireland and has called for a transparent budget. The furtherance of the consolidation of the peace process in Northern Ireland and the support, particularly of the cross-border cooperation afforded by local initiatives, which Mr Hume made reference to once again, was not just an innovative goal, but was also the right programme to my way of thinking, and I am delighted to be able, once again, to acknowledge the fact that it has Parliament’s support. This programme too was launched under very difficult conditions initially. As the Court of Auditors report shows, it was still able, in the end, to play a part in supporting the peace and reconciliation process in Northern Ireland. I believe that was the object of the exercise and to that extent, I am delighted that it could be judged a success at the end of the day.
I feel this debate has shown how valuable the Special Reports by the Court of Auditors are, because they investigate particular problematic areas in great detail. As Commissioner, I can only welcome these Special Reports with open arms because they enable us to deal with criticisms as they arise, and the Court of Auditors constructs its Special Reports so well that they can have a direct bearing on new Commission proposals.
Of course, I must be brief and I am only able to go into some aspects of Parliament’s very detailed and valuable reports. Firstly I will deal with the report by Mr Garriga, and then I will consider your comments on the own resources, Mr Pomés Ruiz. EUR 14 billion is raised annually in customs duties, for the purpose of financing the EU budget, and a substantial proportion of this amount is accounted for by securities and guarantees.
Over the last few years, the Commission has endeavoured to substantially improve the legal provisions in this area. I might mention that in 1999 and 2000, new legal provisions on the transit procedure in the customs field entered into force. They allow for better monitoring of transit processes and the handling of securities undertaken for the purpose of safeguarding these processes. The Community Custom’s Code has just recently been amended and the amendment has entered into force.
Last year, seven Member States were connected up to the new computer-supported transit procedure. Parliament initiated a great deal in this area through its committee of inquiry, which produced some very practical results that are now being worked on by the Commission. Above all, it is highly significant that the candidate countries are now to be directly involved in this computer system, i.e. in this new procedure.
There are two ongoing sets of infringement proceedings against Germany relating to the consequences of impropriety in respect of customs procedures, and the question as to whether this should attract interest payments, and consideration is being given to invoking similar proceedings against Austria, Belgium and Denmark. In addition, I might point out that at some point in the next few days, the Commission will present its report on the own resources system for the period 1997-1999. All in all, it is the Commission’s intention to transfer more responsibility to the Member States in the customs field. I take the view that in the event of administrative error which leads to losses in customs revenue, a different regime should apply in future to the one currently in force, i.e. it is the Member States themselves that should be liable for the loss of revenue in the event of error. It is quite simply a bad system, in that the last pillar of financing within the EU budget has to come into play in such circumstances, i.e. all Member States then have to pay according to their share of GNP. In other words, the present system is such that those who practise sloppy management are rewarded, whilst those who make a special effort are, in fact, the mugs. It ought to be the Finance Ministers’ first priority to want to change a system of this kind. There is no sign of this happening yet, but the Commission will continue to press the point.
I will now turn now to the extremely important report on agriculture by Mr McCartin. I would like to express my gratitude for these reports. They cover the following subjects: milk powder, butterfat, cereals and swine fever. I have several brief comments to make on these, and, Mrs Rühle, all I can say is how right you are that this report too illustrates, once again, the number of areas in which urgent reforms are needed. We have one surplus in the entire area of milk production, and this causes a whole host of other problems, particularly in terms of financial control, because this surplus has led to specific sales promotion measures for skimmed-milk powder and butterfat, which raise enormous problems for financial control time and again, or, to put it another way, they create opportunities for fraud.
The criticism raised in the Special Report prompted the Commission to improve on and simplify four aspects relating to skimmed milk. The definition of skimmed-milk powder eligible for financial aid was stated more precisely, the control procedures, particularly in relation to the detection of the presence of whey in skimmed-milk powder, were reviewed, and the aid for liquid skimmed milk destined for use in animal feed was abolished following a cost-benefit analysis, which is something that attracted a great deal of criticism. This was a necessary measure though, because the vehemence of the Court of Auditor’s criticism on this point meant that steps had to be taken.
On the subject of butterfat – there is also an issue here arising from the overproduction that occurs in this sector – I can confirm that the fact that payment of aid is concentrated on only a few Member States is to be reviewed at the forthcoming assessment of the milk sector. This concentration is not unusual but we will take up your comments on this again nonetheless. The Court of Auditor’s observations with regard to shortcomings in the exercise of control are currently being given consideration under the clearance of accounts procedure."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples