Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.2.2-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, on behalf of the Members of the European Court of Auditors, I would like to thank you for inviting me to present the 24th Annual Report of the Court for the 2000 financial year. As in previous years, this presentation marks the start of the discharge procedure.
Notwithstanding that achieving change can be difficult, the Commission should ensure that it takes all the measures within its power to implement the recommendations of the Court and of this Parliament.
In early 2001, as part of its follow-up work, the Court reviewed progress in the replacement of the former anti-fraud unit (UCLAF) with the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF). The new arrangements for OLAF provide a more appropriate administrative framework, with greater independence for the Office than its predecessor.
The Court continues to work closely with OLAF. It has established formal procedures to ensure that the relations between the two organisations are efficient and effective. It has also established a constructive dialogue with the committee established to supervise the work of OLAF, under the chairmanship of Prof. Delmas-Marty.
The Court has recently prepared an opinion, soon to be published, on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of the Community's financial interests. This directive is an important step forward in the fight against fraud. I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control, Mrs Theato, on behalf of the Court of Auditors for her impressive work and dedication over the years to make this important directive possible.
With regard to the Statement of Assurance, the Court is of the opinion that the revised accounts for the financial year ended 31 December 2000 reflect reliably the Community’s revenue and expenditure for the year and the financial situation at the end of the year.
As far as the legality and regularity of underlying transactions are concerned, the audit of the principal management and control systems applicable to Agriculture and Structural Measures revealed weaknesses in the functioning of control procedures aiming to secure the legality and regularity of the transactions.
The audit of operational expenditure revealed an unacceptable incidence of error affecting the amount of the payments or the reality or the eligibility of the underlying transactions.
In view of the results of its audit work taken together, the Court is of the opinion that the transactions underlying the financial statements are, taken as a whole, legal and regular in respect of revenue, commitments and administrative expenditure but declines to provide this assurance in respect of payments in operational expenditure.
Since the last Annual Report the Court has adopted eighteen Special Reports to be taken into account in the discharge procedure, containing the results of audits which focus on a wide range of specific areas in which the Community’s financial management can be improved.
The report follows the format used for the past three years, with chapters covering revenue and each of the expenditure areas under the headings of the financial perspectives. There is an additional chapter this year which marks the development of the Union, which deals with pre-accession aid for which a separate financial perspective heading exists from 2000 onwards. You will also – as usual – find a chapter dedicated to the Statement of Assurance and, attached to the report, you will find the Court’s observations on the implementation of the sixth, seventh and eight European Development Funds.
The results of the Court’s audits indicate significant positive findings. In the agricultural area the reformed clearance of accounts system and the Integrated Administrative and Control System have contributed to improved management of large amounts of European Union funds. The Commission’s strategy for dealing with BSE is basically sound.
With regard to Structural Measures, the URBAN Community Initiative has helped the implementation of many urban development projects and has enabled local authorities to access Union funds. In the external actions area, the work of the agency charged with the reconstruction of Kosovo, was found to be both efficient and economical. The TACIS cross-border co-operation programme is an instrument which has the potential to play a useful role in addressing issues relating to the new eastern border following the next accession.
However, it was also found that major objectives have either not been achieved, or only limited progress had been made. Further, it was frequently found that there was either insufficient or no evaluation by the Commission of the achievement of the objectives.
The Commission’s reform programme is increasing the focus on results and performance measurement, within a resource allocation framework reflecting predetermined priorities and defined objectives. The Court’s findings on recent programmes show that the Commission still faces major challenges in this area.
One of the most important issues in the discussion that we had last year here in Parliament, when I presented the Annual Report for 1999, concerned the situation in the Member States. The results are striking. The Court has concentrated a large share of its resources on the audit of control systems in Member States as a follow up to this debate. Persistent weaknesses were found in Member States’ checking of community operations concerning programmes where management is shared between the Commission and the Member States. This was the case for the Integrated Administrative and Control System (IACS). It was also the case for export refunds, and concerning the control regulation for Structural Measures. Improving the control arrangements in the Member States is central to ensuring the correct use of Union funds. It is also important if the Court is to place some reliance for its own audit purposes on the checks carried out by the various audit and supervisory services in the Commission, and in the Member States. I will come back to this specific problem at the end of my speech.
The recast of the Financial Regulation, which is an important element of the Commission reform programme, maybe the first step that was taken, now seeks to clarify and strengthen the provisions relating to methods of implementation of the budget, advance payments, procurement, presentation of the accounts, and the offices. The introduction of new provisions intended to contribute to the establishment of a coherent legal framework in the field of budgetary execution, based on the primacy of the Financial Regulation, is another important improvement within the recast. However, as you will see from our Annual Report, some important matters of principle stated in the Court’s opinion on the proposed changes have not been followed, which may lead to serious complexity in financial management.
Regarding enlargement, this year’s Annual Report has a new chapter dealing with pre-accession aid for which a separate financial perspective heading exists from 2000 onwards. In accordance with Parliament recommendations in its 1999 discharge resolution, the Court has been improving and intensifying the co-operation with the Supreme Audit Institutions of the candidate countries during the past few years.
Furthermore, in liaison with the Supreme Audit Institutions the Court has been intensifying the exchange of information at different levels of national administrations. The setting-up of national systems of internal control and the external audit of EU funds made available to the candidate countries require closer co-operation between the institutions even before accession.
Enlargement will bring about changes in the way the Council, the Commission and the Court of Justice will work. This is also true for the Court of Auditors and for Parliament.
Today, no one questions the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty to make the Court of Auditors one of the five independent institutions of the Union. The Nice Treaty will mean substantial organisational changes in the near future, also for the European Court of Auditors, where the Court will have the possibility of establishing an organisational structure in chambers with a more effective decision making, even if we will then consist of 25 Member States. The Court is actively preparing itself for this challenging reform.
The different chapters of the Annual Report address four main concerns. First, there is an analysis of the budgetary implementation and of the budgetary management practices for each specific financial perspective heading. Then, you will find the follow-up of observations of the Court in previous Annual and Special Reports. Thirdly, the specific appraisal in the context of the Statement of Assurance with information per financial perspective heading. Finally, a new element this year is that the principal findings and recommendations in the Special Reports adopted by the Court since the last discharge are summarised in the chapters according to the wishes of this Parliament. This means that the Annual Report this year contains all the principal findings and recommendations concerning the implementation of the general budget and the European Development Funds that the Court has published since the last discharge.
The Court is developing its relations with the Commission’s new Internal Audit Service, with discussions covering a number of areas where we can work together. The Court is giving high priority to assessing how it will be able to use the work of the Internal Audit Service and the audit capabilities in the Directorates General. One very promising sign of progress in this field was the conference, under the challenging heading of "
" held at the initiative of the Internal Auditor, Mr Muis, on Thursday and Friday which Mrs Schreyer and Mrs Theato attended. I should like to say, as the President of the Court of Auditors, that this initiative might mean an extremely fruitful, concrete and promising step forward in the idea of a single audit system concerning European funds.
The Treaty states clearly that the European Court of Auditors assists the European Parliament and the Council in exercising their powers of control over the implementation of the budget.
Ladies and Gentleman, I am soon to retire as President and Member of the European Court of Auditors. During my seven years in the Court I have been privileged to contribute to the Court's growing importance, and to the continuous efforts it makes, in collaborating with Parliament and meeting its needs in optimising the assistance it provides.
The Court is addressing the need in its statement of assurance methodology for more information on the nature and causes of the problems affecting the management of Community funds by broadening the range of evidence in support of its conclusions.
The recent reforms in the area of financial management and internal audit will enable the Court to make greater use of the Commission’s work, not least for its work on the Statement of Assurance. The Court intends to continue to develop specific appraisals for each major area of Community activity as a complement to its Statement of Assurance. The specific appraisals are now envisaged in the Nice Treaty and are an important tool to help the discharge authority to make appropriate recommendations with a view to improving management.
One of the major tasks of the enlarged European Union will be the collaboration between European and National Supreme Audit Institutions. This has long been a key preoccupation of this Parliament. But, as we all know, this co-operation has advanced slowly and Parliament has repeatedly urged the Court to improve the situation. After having followed progress for a number of years I have arrived at the conclusion that a good result in this respect requires initiatives at a higher level than purely technical co-operation between the Supreme Audit Institutions of the Member States and the European Court of Auditors.
I would like to quote a Member of this Parliament, Mr Jacques Santer who pointed out, when he was President of the Commission, the importance of collaboration between the national parliaments and the European Parliament. It would also be a key factor in the field of Financial Control. The Supreme Audit Institutions act independently and have a strong collaboration with their respective national parliaments. So, collaboration between national parliaments and the European Parliament could have a major influence on national audit bodies and the European Court of Auditors, in particular in the matter of financial control.
The way of intergovernmental collaboration in this field is not the most practical route to take since the Supreme Audit Institutions of the Member States are, with the exception of my own country, independent of governments, as they are controlling them. But maybe the solution can be found in increased cooperation between this Parliament and the national parliaments of the Member States.
Let me finally add one little word. As parliamentarians in the European Parliament, as Commissioners in the European Commission, also as Auditors in the European Court of Auditors, we have a double role. We have to fulfil our tasks according to the Treaty; to fulfil them as Commissioners, as Parliamentarians and as Members of the Court of Auditors. But we also have another role in common. That is always to defend the idea of Europe.
You will also find, for the first time – not in the copy of annual report that you have in your hands today, but in the Official Journal version that will come when the official version has been printed, something that Parliament has asked for many years – the text of the Court in one column and the answers of the Commission on the same page so as to make the report, at least in this respect, more user-friendly.
Concerning the budget management for 2000, one particular feature of budget implementation was the emergence of a very large surplus of revenue over expenditure, amounting to EUR 11.6 billion, equivalent to more than 14 % of final payment expenditure. The main factors which led to this situation were a higher revenue yield than budgeted and – perhaps even more important – lower payments on Structural Measures, in particular those for the 2000-2006 programming period.
The Court recommends that the Commission examine how it can better use the supplementary and amending budget procedure to avoid excessive budget surpluses, in order to avoid distorted revenue positions for the following year caused by the carrying over of surpluses.
The Court, responding to the wishes of the discharge authority, has continued to follow up the observations in previous Annual and Special Reports. The main purpose of this is to review what action has been taken, principally by the Commission, in response to the observations of the Court, the recommendations of the Council and the resolutions of the European Parliament.
In all of the subjects examined, some action has been taken. The extent and effectiveness of this action, however, vary considerably. In general, the Commission, in particular where it agreed with the earlier observations and propositions, has adopted measures designed to respond to them and to improve the situation. In some cases corrective action has been slow, in others, staff and financial resources allocated have been insufficient to achieve the desired level of improvement.
Effecting improvements in the management and control of complex programmes involving many organisations at different levels is difficult and takes time. Structural rigidities have often to be overcome, and in the areas of shared or decentralised management, which account for more than 80 % of the general budget, the Commission requires action from others, such as Member States."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Verstehen"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples