Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-02-Speech-4-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041202.4.4-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Fabra Vallés, members of the European Court of Auditors, ladies and gentlemen. Let me first of all thank Mr Fabra Vallés for his speech and say once more that I am very satisfied with the fair and balanced manner in which the Court of Auditors has presented its annual report. I would like to assure the Court and this Parliament that the Commission will give its full attention to the findings and recommendations of the Court.
Let me briefly comment on the discussions in the Committee on Budgetary Control. I welcome the timing, format and approach chosen by Parliament this year. In the committee discussions held since last week, substantial questions have been raised attempting to clarify certain essential unresolved issues. In my opinion, this type of approach will enable us to improve the quality of our dialogue.
I was glad to see that one of the key issues considered by the committee was the question of how we might achieve a positive statement of assurance on the payments side in the future. A positive statement of assurance should mean that the discharge authority is sufficiently confident that the supervisory and control authorities are aware of expenditure, and that they minimise the risk of irregularities at a reasonable administrative cost.
Despite what the Treaty states, the Commission is not in a position to achieve this on its own. We need greater coordination of auditing and budgetary control processes by the Commission, the Member States and the Court of Auditors. The minimisation of risks requires much more effective supervision and control measures, which in turn means filling in the gaps in the audit, and the elimination of any overlaps.
For payments by Member States, for instance, this means that the Member States would have to issue credible audit certificates that the Commission, which has overall responsibility, can rely on.
Needless to say, the Member States have not been particularly keen to take on this extra responsibility. And perhaps we have failed to motivate Member States sufficiently to take more than a seasonal interest in budgetary discharge issues.
When the Court of Auditors presented its report to the Economic and Financial Affairs Council last week, my main message to the council was that the discharge is not simply a bilateral affair between the Commission and Parliament. We should try to find more ways and opportunities to remind the Member States of this. Hopefully Parliament and the debate today will help to make progress on this issue.
As for the Commission, we will play our part in this. For us, one of the most important challenges is the accounting system. In this regard, I would like to stress that the Commission has made good progress in modernising the accounting system and converting to the accrual accounting method. When the new system is in place in 2005, the Commission will be far ahead of most public administrations in the European Union.
Mr President, Mr Fabra Vallés, members of the Court of Auditors, ladies and gentlemen, I have not used the time allotted to me to list all the measures taken by the Commission that have been welcomed in the Court of Auditors’ report.
Let me simply note that we are of course pleased with the positive statement of assurance that the Court of Auditors has given on the reliability of the accounts. We are pleased that the improvements in this year’s presentation of the accounts have been acknowledged. And we certainly appreciate the unconditional positive statement of assurance that the Court of Auditors has given in respect to its own resources, commitment appropriations and administrative expenditure.
Now I have the opportunity to return the compliment: the fact that the European Union’s financial management has significantly improved on all levels, guaranteeing EU citizens greatly improved cost-effectiveness, is to a large extent due to the Court of Auditors’ reports. I would like to thank Mr Fabra Vallés most sincerely for the invaluable contribution of the Court. The 2003 budget discharge procedure has begun. I want to conclude by repeating that all institutions have both an interest and a responsibility in taking an active part in the process ahead. My colleagues and I in the Commission are keen to discuss with you how we can attain the best result, and the best way to assess it. I believe this is in all our interests.
Now, though, let me address what I believe to be the most essential political aspect of the whole process. This essential political question has to do with the negative background to the positive statement of assurance, the so-called DAS. This stems from the fact that for the tenth year running, the Court of Auditors has felt unable to issue a fully positive statement of assurance.
Thank you.
This so-called anniversary was greatly relished by the Euro-sceptic press – and some politicians – who used the negative statement of assurance to present distorted and disproportionate claims about the handling of EU funds in general. The situation stayed relatively quiet this year, but only because the Eurosceptic press was too busy dealing with the delay in the investiture of the Barroso Commission. However, regardless of how distorted the information may be, and the measures we may take to state our case, year after year this negative perception continues to affect public opinion, referenda, and pan-European cooperation.
This inevitably provokes the questions: ‘Who is to blame for the fact that the European Court of Auditors’ statements of assurance have been negative for a whole decade?’ and ‘What should we do about it?’
If we asked the Commission whose fault it was, their simple answer would be to put the blame on the Member States for poor implementation of the payment system, and on the methodology applied.
If we were to ask the Council, it would be easy for them to blame the Commission, who, under Article 274 of the Treaty, clearly hold responsibility for the implementation of the EU budget.
If we asked the Court of Auditors, they would emphasise their limited human resources and the magnitude of the task. From time to time, they do acknowledge the progress made by the Commission, but since the Treaty does not give them much room for manoeuvre in their approach, the result is a negative statement of assurance. But what, ladies and gentlemen, would the answer of the European Parliament be? On the one hand, Parliament wanted to approve the budget, but on the other hand, the impression has been left that it has taken the negative statement of assurance into account. It is difficult to achieve a balance in such a situation.
I am glad that Mr Fazakas is Chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control this year, and that Mr Wynn is the discharge rapporteur, with whom we agree on the seriousness of the situation. This means that we can afford to be ambitious. We should all aim higher than just the discharge of the budget.
All four institutions should work together to formulate a joint plan of action for achieving a positive statement of assurance in the near future. This question needs to be resolved, and the Commission is prepared do its part."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples