Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-291"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.12.2-291"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, if this debate was scheduled at this time because of the Conference of Presidents' suspected interest in the subject matter, they were probably right. It is not a very exciting topic to be discussing but, as we all know, it is very important or we would not be here. I have to say it is a shame that two of the three committee members who voted against the report in committee and, therefore, triggered a debate in plenary, are not here today to explain their objections to the report.
The second amendment concerns the proposal on the criteria to be taken into account in the event of a waiver of recovery of an established debt. There are two criteria: one on competition and one on economic and social damage caused by a debt if it is recovered. The GUE/NGL Group wants to scrap this possibility for authorising officers. The amendment we have introduced and which you have just accepted, introducing a reporting requirement to Parliament, offers sufficient safeguards.
To conclude, I think these amendments strengthen the proposal and I call on the Commission to incorporate them all into the final text.
I would like to thank the committee members who supported me in drawing up this report and giving it near unanimous backing in committee. Thanks are due also to the Commission for the excellent cooperation we have again had on this report. Many of the amendments contained in the committee's report are technical in nature. I am not going to go into that. I just want to mention a few substantive issues the Commissioner also raised.
The report deals with a number of points where we feel the implementing rules could be strengthened. The first concerns weaknesses regarding the appointment and functioning of senior financial actors, something which has been an issue for the last few months. There have been several instances of transfers or terminations of duties involving directors-general and there has been the case of the accounting officer, Mrs Andreasson. The issues raised are being dealt with by the committee and assessed on their own merits. However, issues of form have also arisen concerning how such appointments, transfers and terminations are dealt with within the Commission. We would like to see certain safeguards built into the Financial Regulation. Safeguards, not in the sense that you can be sure mistakes will never be made or problems will never occur, but safeguards that introduce more transparency to ensure that the process is visible and that we are not faced with surprises and
This involves the appointment of senior officers, something to which you referred, Commissioner. I will request that a report be submitted to the budgetary authority and that the accounting officer and internal auditor be appointed on the basis of a vacancy notice in the Official Journal. They should be external candidates, where necessary on limited-term contracts. I realise that we cannot change the Financial Regulation but we must take the matter up in the Staff Regulations, because it is an important point.
Secondly, there is the question of the financial irregularities panel, which is designed to fill a gap in the existing set-up and introduce new expertise. What we want to avoid is a system where peers are assessing peers. The introduction of an independent external element is, therefore, important, and I welcome the fact that you have accepted that proposal.
Thirdly, there is the matter of improving the quality and integrity of the computerised accounting system, something you also mentioned. We want a single integrated computer system, with access restricted to a list of authorised persons to be kept by the institution. I realise that the Commission is already doing this, and it is important the other institutions should be required to follow.
Finally, we want to see an easy-to-read audit trail maintained, to ensure adequate control of expenditure.
The final point I want to mention is late payments and the need to bring commercial payments in line with the relevant directive. I am sure my colleague, Mr Casaca, who has worked hard on this, will have something more to say. Three amendments have been tabled in plenary in addition to the ones from the committee. One by the PPE-DE Group and two by the GUE/NGL Group, none of which I support. The PPE-DE is retabling an amendment that was rejected in committee, proposing to create a fully independent accounting officer with no lines of accountability and responsibility within the Commission. I cannot support that because it contradicts the Financial Regulation itself, in relation to which these are implementing rules. Nor is there any point in creating an isolated island within the institution, which would go against the whole principle of accountability. Great formal power does not necessarily mean better decision-making, as we know.
With regard to the amendments by the GUE/NGL Group, I can agree in spirit with Amendment No 34 on the need for the accounting officer to have full information, but in practice it would lead to a huge bureaucracy, with 600 000 payments going through one single person. Although not the aim of the amendment, it would certainly lead to unnecessary bureaucracy."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"faits accomplis."1
"van Hulten (PSE ),"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples