Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-23-Speech-2-256"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011023.12.2-256"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Commission is now to be granted discharge for 1999, but Parliament has, in actual fact, achieved a lot by postponing the discharge first time around. The Commission has been pressed to take initiatives it would not otherwise have wished to take. I think the rapporteur has delivered a splendid piece of work, but I also think the Commission deserves to be warmly congratulated when it makes progress – as, I believe, it has in fact done. I would therefore recommend, on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, that we grant discharge for the development fund. At the same time, I want to assure the Commission that all the outstanding problems will be followed up in the discharge for the year 2000.
The Commission has carried out a major investigation of the counterpart funds and of the roles and responsibilities of the delegations. An investigation has been carried out into whether the delegations have complied with their responsibilities, and it would appear that they have done so, for disciplinary enquiries are not to be carried out. I can, of course, ask Mr Nielson if the Commission will confirm that disciplinary enquiries will not be carried out on the basis of its investigations. I can also – perhaps rather teasingly – ask if the Commission will confirm this report, which will not be sent to Parliament.
The internal audit service has done good work from the start with its investigations of the counterpart funds. It is a good report which is critical about the way in which the system operates. The counterpart funds amount to direct budgetary support, and neither the Commission nor the delegations in the beneficiary countries have any direct control over the money. The report emphasises that direct budgetary support is risky, irrespective of what is done. Mr Nielson has said that that form of subsidy should nonetheless be maintained. How, though, does he think that control over the funds can be improved? The Commission must also be praised for sending this report to Parliament immediately. It shows it has learned something from this whole course of events. Discharge was postponed primarily because there were problems with the supply of information. Reports were sent to the wrong people, were seriously delayed or never arrived. I think, however, that it is a good result we have achieved, and I therefore recommend discharge for the Commission."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples