Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-015"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-12-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Debate on the annual report of the Court of Auditors – 20012
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021204.2.3-015"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-12-04-Speech-3-0162
lpv:speaker	lp:Jonas Sjöstedt2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Vänsterpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; CONT (2002-03-21--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, once again we have an annual report, this time for 2001, which contains very serious criticism from the Court of Auditors on several points. As previously, there are very concrete cases in a number of areas where EU funds are being used entirely wrongly, especially within agricultural policy. The report also points to the enormous surplus of EUR 15 billion, in other words 16% of the budget. Without doubt, the most serious point in this annual report is, however, the general criticism of the reliability of the EU’s accounting system and of its financial management. This criticism was very clear both in the report and during its presentation to the committee. At the presentation, the representatives of the Court of Auditors told the committee that, because the system works the way it does, it can in fact only be guaranteed that 5% of the payments are correct. This in itself is unprecedented and something that must be taken incredibly seriously. In addition, the changes seem to be taking a long time. The Court of Auditors’ report states that, in May this year, the action plan which is to lead to improvements had not even begun to be implemented. Despite this serious criticism of the accounting system, the statement of assurance nevertheless states that the transactions have been carried out correctly. In my view, this is highly contradictory. In principle, it is impossible to claim both these things at the same time. One cannot both point to an accounting system which cannot be followed and be able to guarantee that everything has been managed correctly. I question whether this statement of assurance is actually justified. We all know about the vehement criticism of the accounts from former chief accountant Mrs Marta Andreasen. She also refused to sign off the accounts for 2001. I would like to ask the Court of Auditors whether they understand this, considering the criticism that the Court of Auditors itself has put forward. Is it not the case that not signing off the accounts is quite a reasonable position to adopt? Another interesting view from Mrs Marta Andreasen is that fast improvements can be implemented without new investment in the Commission. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of the Court of Auditors on this matter too. I am also a little surprised about this debate where the criticism made by Mrs Andreasen is being dismissed. It be the case that it is incorrect but, if this is the case, why may we not hear this criticism? Why do the other political groups here in the European Parliament not want a ? Why is the Commission in practice gagging Mrs Andreasen when members of the European Parliament have invited her in to make our audit work easier? It is not a particularly attractive development."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"hearing"1 "may"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph