Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.3.2-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should like to recommend that we give the Commission discharge for the Development Fund, and I should like to ask Mrs Schreyer to communicate this to Mr Nielson, as I can see that he is not here today during this important debate. I threatened along the way to have the discharge decision postponed if the Commission could not supply any results. In fact, it has done so. There are still a few problems, but we shall have to look at those in a follow-up report. I have focused in particular upon quality in the form of the number of follow-ups of audit results this year. What concerns me is that the Commission has no overview of how many audits have been carried out, where and by whom. One of my first questions to the Commission was: ‘How many audits did you carry out in the year 2000?’. The first answer was twelve, and that – I think – was extremely few, considering that there are 70 ACP countries. The Commission then found a few more reports. The thought occurred to them that a number of reports had no doubt been produced out in the delegations, and Mr Nielson assured the committee that 73 audits had been carried out in 2000. I then asked for a list of these audits. It proved to be a list containing very sparse information, which did not leave me much the wiser. However, it provoked a lot of amusement – especially in the Court of Auditors – when it was seen what was being presented as audits. Moreover, almost half of them were from Malawi, and it turned out that these were to be deducted from the number of audits, leaving 52 and not, as Mr Nielson had promised us in the committee, 73. It may well be that 52 audits are enough, but it is worrying that the Commission does not have a better overview of how many audits are carried out and by whom. There are no central records, and there is no general view of the activities ‘out in the field’. The Commission has nonetheless convinced me that it is not necessary for the audits to be carried out from the headquarters in Brussels. I have therefore withdrawn my original demand for at least 50 audits. However, the more financial responsibility that is farmed out to the delegations, the greater the demands that are made in terms of oversight and coordination to be exercised by headquarters.
I have also asked the Commission to give me a better explanation of why the remaining millions of euros mentioned in the Court of Auditors’ annual report have still not been claimed back. It is two years since this was noted, and still nothing has happened. I asked DG AIDCO’s director-general if, on the basis of the auditing system and the information received from the delegations, he could issue a statement to the effect that the EDF funds are used in accordance with the principles of ‘sound management’. I have still not had an answer to this question. I could have put the question to Commissioner Nielson if he had been here today. However, it may of course be that Mrs Schreyer can help me. There has been a lot of criticism of the way in which the ACP’s secretariat has operated. Extremely critical audit reports have been prepared, and there have unfortunately also been some court cases in Belgium leading to convictions for not complying with legislation. That is not, I think, something that we can live with in the EU. New management is now in place, with which I have had some incredibly productive meetings. I hope that matters are improving, which is why I have said that we are now waiting to see what the outcome of the Court of Auditors’ decisions will be, whereupon we shall have to address the issue again.
I also wish to make a couple of observations about Mr McCartin’s report on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left. I think it is a splendid result, and I should like to commend him for having listened to my many amendments and for the fact that they have been incorporated. That is one of the ways in which we can persist in following up the previous discharge decisions, and that is something extremely important to do. There are, however, two important matters I have been left in ignorance of. When will the disciplinary proceedings taking place at the Stockholm office be concluded, including on the part of OLAF? And the same question applies to the IRELA case from Spain, which we have talked at such length about.
I should also like to say a couple of words about the discharge decision where Parliament is concerned. Mr Virrankoski has carried out an outstanding piece of work that is both incisive and well balanced. In connection with the discharge decision where Parliament is concerned, it is not easy to understand our asking for transparency. Everyone here is on the ball, especially when it comes to their own money. I should like to say that I am deeply disappointed at the secretary-general of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats who has written round to all the other groups, saying that it would be a disaster if there were to be transparency in connection with our accounts. We criticise the Commission for not being open but, when it comes to ourselves, we close our eyes. I really do think that the PPE-DE Group’s Secretary-General should be deeply ashamed of ringing round and asking for there to be total secrecy concerning taxpayers’ money. That is something we cannot live with.
I should also like to say that one of the things that strikes me is the desire to close down the Finance Inspectorate. When the figures for 2000 are examined, it can be seen that there were errors in seven per cent of the documents. I think this shows that it must be possible for the impending internal audit to be independent. However, I would still say, forget about closing down the Finance Inspectorate.
With regard to the discharge decision where the Council is concerned, I should like to say that we stand by the committee’s observations and decision. I cannot countenance some members of a group being made to toe the line, with the result that we have to change the decision we voted in favour of in the Committee on Budgetary Control. All things considered, I am going to recommend, however, that we give discharge in all the areas. Things are going well, in fact much better, and that is something we can only be pleased about."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples