Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-29-Speech-1-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040329.8.1-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to start with an observation for Mr Titford’s benefit; this is not a Tempus Phase project, but rather a Tempus project. My fellow-Commissioner with responsibility for enlargement has asked me to make this point clear.
One thing I would like to do is to respond to the questions that Mrs Stauner raised, and the statements she made, about the claim that EUR 1.8 billion went missing in 2002. One simply cannot come to that conclusion on the basis of the figures in the report on the implementation of Article 280; the Member States are obliged to report any irregularities relating to the Structural Funds, the Agricultural Funds, or the own resources. Irregularities are taken to mean infringements of European regulations. Such an irregularity can be of a financial nature, but it can also be, for example, a breach of an environmental regulation, in which case no financial loss whatever is incurred. As these reports have to relate to the project in its entirety, it is impossible to conclude that the whole project is in some way tantamount to fraud. If, though, a financial irregularity has occurred, the money must be recovered, and it is the Member States themselves who must produce it. It follows that, at the very least, the funds reclaimed must be deducted from the sums to which you, Mrs Stauner, have referred.
It is of course quite illusory to believe that you can have a budget made up of subsidies without any fraud whatever; the risk of fraud is inherent in it. This makes rigorous and universal controls all the more necessary, and in some areas it is the Member States that have to carry these out. Of course it is vexatious when reports either arrive late or are incomplete. You are quite right to say, Mr Bösch, that if there is a country somewhere that has had nothing to report, that does not indicate that everything is being done properly there, but rather that checks are not being carried out. Even in Member States that perhaps pride themselves on doing a good job of monitoring, we find, again and again, that they are not.
Take a look at the Court of Auditors’ report for the year 2000. It shows, unfortunately, that it is in the country from which you and I come, the country we both know best, that paying agencies – including one in Bavaria, your own part of the country – have the highest margin of error. For that reason, offices everywhere must carry out checks, and as and when they find something, they have to take appropriate action – which may involve recovering the money. In that event, we have to be consistent, and the money must be collected. I have to tell Mrs Stauner that ‘zero tolerance’ does not mean that we stop carrying out checks, but that, if something is found, we draw the appropriate conclusions.
I would like, by way of a brief response to what Mr van Dam said, to point out that the DG Budget is not the DG with responsibility for financial control. I will reiterate that point. Financial control has now been decentralised, and the position is the same in all the countries from which you come, where it is always the ministry responsible for a particular programme that is also responsible for monitoring it and for its proper implementation; it cannot hide behind another Directorate-General. That was our mistake in the past. The internal audit service is independent, something that I believe it did indeed demonstrate while Mr Muis was responsible for running it.
I would like to return to the issue of the transport of live animals, export subsidies and the export of live cattle. The fact of the matter is that this is permitted. It is also stated, in a Council decision, that live exports are subsidised, albeit to a lesser extent than in the past, so I cannot categorise the export of live cattle as fraud; it is legal. I share your concern that questions should be asked about precisely what, in terms of animal protection, is ethically justifiable about this. I did mention that – as we saw in the case of Egypt – the Commission has tightened up the relevant regulations. If, then, the European Union stops these exports, and these animals are transported from Australia, then, as far as the protection of animals is concerned, nothing has been gained. This means that it is vital that we act in the interests of the welfare of animals not merely within the EU, but also seek out allies.
I have taken note of your critical comments in this area and will be passing them on to my fellow-Commissioner Mr Fischler. I will be asking him to make available to you any further information you may wish to have. In any case, I will tell him about the critical tone your House has adopted on this issue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples