Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.1.2-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I, too, should like to thank the rapporteurs for their work and congratulate them on the result, especially Mr Casaca, who this year took care of discharge to the Commission. What is remarkable about this debate is that, on the eve of next year's European elections, we once more have a Commission which has not received a positive Statement of Assurance from the European Court of Auditors. Nevertheless, my group will align itself with those who wish to grant discharge.
What are our reasons for doing this in spite of that negative, or non-existent, Statement of Assurance? First of all, many reports by the Court of Auditors have revealed that there have been improvements in the administration of the Commission. Secondly, a Financial Regulation has been adopted. We believe that that Regulation must be given time and chance to take effect, and we are giving the Commission time to do that. Our third argument for granting discharge is that, if we do not do so at the present juncture, on the eve of enlargement, it will make an extremely bad impression on the new Member States: that is to say, that we are in effect packing the Commission off home. Nor could we do that. Our final argument for giving discharge is that we have found the attitude of the Commission towards this Parliament very positive in recent years. Requests for information have met with a satisfactory and timely response, and even the response to Parliament’s own-initiative reports has been positive. Consequently, we recommend discharge.
The crucial question for us remains: what does the Commission need to do in order to obtain a positive Statement of Assurance? The Court of Auditors does not say in its reports. Every year another surprise awaits as to what they have to say, and another whole list of things that are going wrong emerges. I think that it is good that the Commission is now entering into discussions with the Court of Auditors, and that it is then going to inform Parliament of the criteria and timetable it intends to keep to in order to obtain a positive Statement of Assurance.
I should like to say a little about agriculture. The most striking feature of current agricultural policy is that it is no longer based on price support, but rather on income support – the integrated administration and control system. The irritating thing is that this is applied differently in different European countries. That is unacceptable. In a united Europe, the systems should be the same. I would therefore draw the attention of the Commission once more to an own-initiative report – which it so happens was drawn up by me, but was approved by plenary session – in which we point out that, if the administration of agricultural expenditure in the new and existing Member States concerned is not in order, the Commission must suspend advance payments much more often until the system is in order, instead of carrying out controls after the event and imposing penal charges."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples