Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.1.2-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to express my sincere thanks for this lively debate. I am unable at this juncture to deal with every contribution, but I can address a few points, beginning perhaps with one of those raised by Mrs Maes in her speech. I hope that the Convention will ensure that the European Development Fund does not have a separate budget with its own rules – many of them complex – since this has contributed to our having had such poor implementation. I hope that the Convention will take the step of deleting this separate fund from the constitutional treaty, so as to make development aid an integral part of the European budget.
I should like to thank Parliament, and particularly the Committee on Budgetary Control, for its critical but unstinting support.
I should also like to correct Mr Heaton-Harris: expenditure in the European financial year 2001 was not EUR 98 billion but EUR 79 billion. Indeed, it was strongly emphasised in this debate that the budget was relatively low and was also underspent.
In response to Mr Casaca’s contribution, let me come back to the point that the resources which the Member States can retain when funds allocated to agricultural expenditure are reclaimed actually flow into the Member States’ budgets. In other words, the Member States are entitled to use this 20%, which they may retain for administrative expenses as they see fit, because they are required, of course, to meet the administrative costs incurred by the paying agency, and these funds are effectively intended to help defray such administrative costs.
With regard to Mr Blak’s comments about the former project officer for the Dotcom project, let me say that this matter is currently being re-examined by Vice-President Neil Kinnock. The question of the extent to which support is granted under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is currently under consideration.
A word to Mr Camre: you made accusations against members of the Commission staff, Mr Camre, which I must refute. I will emphasise once again that, when irregularities – particularly fraud – are suspected, is suspected, there is an obligation to inform OLAF, which will then conduct the appropriate investigations. OLAF, on which I recently presented a report, is not our only watchdog: we also have the internal Audit Service, and we have established inspection capacities in every directorate-general. The situation portrayed by Mr Bösch in which an individual acts as both an administrator of resources and a financial inspector is no longer permissible under the new Financial Regulation; these functions must now be performed by different people. This now applies to the agencies as well; as you may know, the necessary adjustments have been made in recent weeks to bring the relevant rules, including the provisions of the agencies’ founding instruments, into line with the new Financial Regulation.
On the accounting system, let me reiterate that, in the year 2000, we commissioned a study to review the accounting system. After receiving the findings, the Director-General and I once again amended the proposals for the revision of the Financial Regulation and incorporated new accounting rules. That was in 2001. I should like to reiterate my thanks to Mr Dell’Alba for his commendation of Mr Megason, who has truly performed sterling work for the Commission and who has always been a particularly staunch advocate of greater Parliamentary involvement in the budgetary process. Much of the ‘soft law’ we have introduced in this domain over the past few years to enable Parliament to participate more fully in the process has been due to his commitment.
And then, still in the year 2001, the Commission published a working paper on the reform of the accounting system. The work that should have been done in response to that paper, however, was delayed for several months because of a situation of which you are all aware. Strenuous efforts have now been made to make up for lost time. The Committee on Budgetary Control, as you know, has welcomed the outline reform proposals and especially the road map – the sequence of specific planned measures.
Mrs Stauner’s allegation that no cash audits had taken place for ten years is simply unfounded. The European Court of Auditors carries out a cash audit every year as an elementary component, so to speak, of its auditing activity. The Court of Auditors has once again informed the Committee on Budgetary Control of its annual audit. I believe it is quite wrong for anyone here to more or less disregard the work of the European Court of Auditors.
This was a very spirited debate here today, matching the intensity of the entire reform process and reflecting the intensive, committed and meticulous way in which Parliament has conducted the whole discharge process. These are, of course, sweeping reforms, and critical support on the part of Parliament is essential if they are to be implemented."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples