Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-197"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.11.3-197"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, on 26 July last year the Commission proposed a thorough revision of the financial Bible that is the Financial Regulation, with fundamental provisions for all financial management. Today we have the opportunity to debate Parliament’s amendments and reports. I should like to begin by expressing my thanks and admiration to two gentlemen, the rapporteur of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Dell’Alba, and the rapporteur of the Committee on Budgetary Control, Mr van Hulten. They have accomplished a very comprehensive piece of work in a really very short space of time, for which my admiration and my thanks. I should of course also like to express my thanks for the intensive and detailed work done by the committees.
One of the important aims of the revision is that commitments for external aids should be translated more quickly into concrete projects. In order to achieve a more rigorous execution it is therefore proposed that global commitments should be processed by 31 December of the financial year n+1 except for the implementation of financial conventions in connection with external policies.
The new version transposes the EU directives on public procurement into the Financial Regulation. To prevent irregularities, fraud and corruption, tenderers or bidders who are shown to have behaved in such ways can be excluded from contracts, a very important point.
So far as financial aids are concerned, fundamental principles – like the existence of a basis in law – are transparently formulated. Under the proposal it will then also be possible to administer all external aids going to third countries decentrally. This is another aspect frequently mentioned by the Committee on Budgets as a way of increasing efficiency.
The second part proposes a solid system for financial management based on performance and results. This system has two key components, firstly greater responsibility for those administering the appropriations, and secondly the incorporation of controls into the financial management procedures. I can only endorse what Mr van Hulten has said. The aim is precisely to make it possible to pinpoint responsibility. Because today we have a situation where the various directorates-general that administer the funds are able to hide behind centralised financial control, and precisely that will be abolished. Responsibility will be assignable for all who have to handle money. Then they will no longer be able to hide in this way. That is a very important point.
Mrs Theato, you have just said in connection with your tabled amendments – which the Commission naturally does not welcome because they would reverse the whole system again – that the most recent fraud report would show how important
controls are. You have chosen the wrong example there! I have to say it as simply as that because the statistics in that report are the statistics of financial controllers in the Member States. They are statistics of reported cases, in customs for example. There are no
controls in customs. Or in agricultural policy: here
controls take place only by way of commitments. Payments are not checked by centralised
controls here in Brussels but by the payment offices in the Member States. It is exactly the same with structural aids. The question of whether we want to continue having centralised
controls or not and the statistics from the Member States are completely unrelated because
controls do not take place there but in the Member States.
Regarding the structure of the budget plan, I should like briefly to comment on a number of remarks that have been made during the debate. For the purpose of activity based budgeting we propose abolishing the separation between A and B. That will of course not reduce transparency, it is actually intended to increase it. It is not the case that staff appropriations or administrative appropriations will no longer be shown separately in future. They will of course continue to have their own budget lines which will be decided by Parliament together with the Council. Only it will no longer be a global part that appears consolidated in the budget, but it will be assigned to the various policy areas. That increases transparency over all.
The following points are consistent with the Commission’s position. I am referring now to the amendments tabled by the rapporteurs concerning the role of the actors, the precedence of the Financial Regulation over sectoral rules or provisions, the definition of commitments and externalisation. I should particularly like to welcome Amendment No 44 on the definition of a financial statement and its function. I believe this is a very important clarification, like a number of clarifications contained in the amendments, which are very much welcomed by the Commission because, I believe, they very much enhance the usability and legal clarity that the Financial Regulation is intended to create.
I have already mentioned that we cannot go along with the amendments on negative revenue and expenditure. I should like to say the following on this point: regarding customs revenue you suggest in the amendments that the portion of administrative appropriations that can be retained in the Member States be shown as expenditure in the budget. That would then be Category 5 expenditure and would create entirely new problems in that category even though it is indeed money that does not pass through the Commission budget at all. I think, however, we will be able to agree on these points.
I do not think there is any point in saying something about all the different amendments now because that would take us long past midnight.
Let me close by noting that the European Parliament would like to postpone the formal vote on the resolution for the time being. I should like to repeat again that I understand and support the European Parliament wanting to add weight to its position in the negotiations. I therefore intend, at next week’s ECOFIN Council on 5 June, to invite the Presidency to a quadrilogue together with the European Parliament, the Court of Auditors and the Commission so that we can agree in a quadrilogue – a new coinage – on how to proceed, but above all so that we can discuss the content. The meeting should then be held as soon as possible. I hope that this will enable the European Parliament to adopt its formal opinion at an early date. The Commission would like to present its revised proposal in September in the light of further developments and hopefully of further agreement.
As well as the reports of the rapporteurs, we now also have the report of the Court of Auditors, which was published back in March, and we have the draft Council Recommendation. I should like to stress in particular how valuable it is that Parliament supports this tight, this ambitious timetable, namely to have a new Financial Regulation available by 2002 if at all possible, and thanks to your work we are making good progress.
The entire procedure is far from easy, as has been said. Unanimity is required in the Council, and the formal procedure provides only for a simple consultation for Parliament. The Commission understands that Parliament would like to see this procedure designed such that Parliament’s amendments are also reflected in the final outcome.
You know the proposal that the Commission presented for the Intergovernmental Conference in Nice. The Commission does not yet have a formal position on Parliament’s amendments since a formal opinion of Parliament is not yet available, but I should like this evening to make known my positive appraisal of a number of tabled amendments. The results of the consultation with Council, European Parliament and Court of Auditors show a high degree of agreement in many areas. In others there is still a need for clarification and coordination over matters of principle or technical details.
I should like to begin by going over a few basic principles once again. As has been mentioned, the present Financial Regulation dates back to 1977 and we have at present actually more of a patchwork quilt than a coherent plan of financial and budgetary provisions. The proposal therefore contains a fundamental simplification and restructuring. All the principles and essential provisions for financial management are to be combined in a single legal instrument. I am therefore cautious about a number of tabled amendments that propose introducing what are rather special elements again.
Detailed and technical provisions will have their place in the implementing regulation to be adopted by the Commission. To remind ourselves again, the Commission’s proposal has two parts. First, the provisions designed to tighten up and update the rules and procedures for budget management and discharge, and secondly the provisions that reform financial management and the budget structure and thus also the roles of the financial actors.
The first section sets out more rational rules for nearly all fields covered by the present Financial Regulation. The principles of annuality and unity will be more strictly adhered to. There will only be separate appropriations, which means that there will only be commitment and payment authorisations for all expenditure, and the Commission is very glad that Parliament supports this position and this revision. It will simplify the procedure for carrying appropriations over to the next financial year.
Then an important point. There will be no more negative expenditure and revenue. As earmarked revenue, negative expenditure in agriculture will be handled according to the rules for that sector. Here on this point we are unable to go along with Parliament’s amendments, which propose that such negative expenditure in the agricultural sector be considered other general revenue, because that would in fact have very serious consequences in that agricultural expenditure would then have to be cut in proportion to the financial perspective.
The Interinstitutional Agreement provides – it includes it especially – that expenditure funded out of earmarked revenue should not be set against the cap of the financial perspective. That is one of the main reasons why we say that this agricultural revenue should be provided as earmarked revenue. If that is not the case, it means that agricultural expenditure would have to be cut by comparison with today, and that should be prevented. The Financial Regulation should not be used to cut agricultural expenditure more or less by the back door."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples