Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-02-Speech-4-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041202.4.4-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to start by thanking Mr Fabra Vallés for the way in which, over the past three years, he has always been willing to enter into an open dialogue with Parliament. In addition, I should like to wish Commissioner Kallas much success in his new role; I hope for his sake that the European Court of Auditors will be issuing a positive Statement of Assurance at the end of this term.
The elections will be fresh in most of our minds, and as Commissioner Kallas pointed out in his introduction, one of the main criticisms we always heard was that after ten years, the Commission still has not managed to obtain a positive Statement of Assurance from the Court of Auditors. That is grist to the eurosceptics’ mill. We must devote every effort to getting that Statement. However, the Court of Auditors should indicate more clearly what exactly the Commission has to do in order for it to be supplied. What are the criteria? Every year, I read that things are improving, but I never know by how much. What are the concrete measures that should be taken? Parliament has made a few suggestions in the past, including an increase in the financial corrections. What exactly was the impact of this? Did the Court of Auditors ever analyse it?
Last year, we specified in the resolution that if it were to transpire that money in a certain sector was still being used inappropriately, the Commission would have to suspend payment of advances. In the Commission’s response to the Court of Auditors’ remarks, it is stated that this is actually done on a regular basis. What was the precise impact of this? Was it useful? And how do things stand as regards cooperation between the European Court of Auditors and the national courts of auditors? Do national courts of auditors apply the same criteria for the Statement of Assurance as does the European Court of Auditors? Is it not possible for a Member State, at the end of each budget year, to sign a statement that all spending is
? If that subsequently does not appear to be the case, can the Commission not penalise that country for having taken us for a ride? Those are all concrete measures that could be taken. Could the Court of Auditors analyse this in more detail? I do believe it is important for us to know what we are working towards.
Yesterday, we held a debate on the new financial perspectives. Most countries say that they need more money than the 1% demanded by some Member States. How is this justifiable if it appears, year after year, that the money is not spent properly? The arguments in favour of receiving more money do then tend to lose some of their potency, and so I think that the European Court of Auditors has its work cut out.
I was also surprised to read about item 0.6 of the General Introduction to the Annual Report 2003. It states that the increase in outstanding commitments has never been as high. By the end of 2003, the commitments amounted to five years’ worth of payments. That is incredibly high. In other words, we could go on for five years without entering into any new commitments. Am I wrong in thinking that this five-year period simply continues to run?
I therefore think that a great deal needs to be done. It is unacceptable for us not to have a Statement of Assurance over a period of two or three years. The Commission must set clear criteria, which the European Court of Auditors must verify, while also indicating to what extent the self-imposed goals have been achieved."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples