Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-201"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.15.3-201"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to comment on the issue raised by Mr Bösch, Mr Mulder and Mr Wynn regarding the larger involvement of Member States in our overall control and surveillance and audit architecture. The interinstitutional agreement is preliminarily agreed. We now of course will wait; this was agreed between all three institutions. The Council will discuss it in the middle of May and it will be obviously signed in the middle of May. That is the official position of the Member States’ representatives and the Presidency. It has been signed and I have no doubt that there have been very close consultations between Member States about this issue.
Secondly, there are different views in Member States, but I am very happy to now use the momentum which was mentioned by Mr Wynn. I have promoted this idea and discussed the discharge and the integrated control framework several times in the Council. I must say that the positive attitude is increasing. In the last Council meeting, the ideas were clearly supported by three Member States and some of them have also declared their readiness to carry out some kind of pilot project or to start to share the responsibility immediately. So there is definitely an increase in positive attitude. It is more complicated for federal states, but I think we have to work on it; this is a European Union where things do not happen suddenly – except bad things.
In answer to Mr Mulder’s question as to what we will do next: next will be the adoption of this interinstitutional agreement, then certain amendments to legislation, and then practical work to use this cooperation between Member States.
I would like to assure Mr Bösch this is definitely not a miracle, and these are two separate things. Today we met the Court of Auditors and we definitely felt a certain nervousness – which was also mentioned by Mr Bösch – among some members of the Court of Auditors about this. I clearly assure you that there are two separate issues. One is the control, audit and surveillance architecture as a system; another is our mistakes – irregularities which will happen and against which we have to fight. This system of surveillance must be rational and just give answers – are the proper policy-making decisions implemented properly or not? Nobody wants to have any derogation as regards the evaluation of efficiency in accordance with the rules of fulfilling our programme.
Last year we started to introduce understandings that the Member States’ participation is extremely substantial and inevitable if we want to increase transparency and improve the handling of European money. We have achieved certain steps and we have move forward. We can be modestly optimistic about it.
Regarding the accounts mentioned by Mrs Gräßle, I do not believe – and I have been informed of this by our Chief Accounting Officer – that we have any secret accounts. All accounts are under control; accounts inside the EU and outside the EU have different regimes as regards checking them, but the new accounting system must secure the proper reflection of all the accounts. I cannot imagine that the European Union has some accounts which are not known by our surveillance system.
Thank you very much for your comments. We will see each other soon in similar circumstances in autumn when we start the next discharge, for the 2005."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples