Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-29-Speech-4-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071129.3.4-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the Court of Auditors for its new system of reporting to the European Parliament. For years we have been asking whether the errors in the various chapters might not be quantified rather precisely. For years the Court said that it was not possible and now, happily, we see for the first time that the Court of Auditors too can change its mind; it now uses a ‘traffic light’ system of reporting – red, yellow and green. We welcome that very much and hope that in years to come the system will be refined further so that we can see where things have been improved. On the matter of improvements – Mr Kallas has made the point already – the Commission can of course be proud, because three years ago only 6% of expenditure was deemed to have been legal. Now the figure is 40% and the Commission came close to giving agriculture the green light. That is progress. The big question is, does the man in the street think enough progress has been made? Well, I can tell you, the answer is no. It beggars belief that the Statement of Assurance still is not positive after so many years, and it is a reason for great concern.
An even greater problem is the Structural Funds; 12% is of course far too high. It would be good if in future reports the Court of Auditors could explain exactly where this 12% comes from. From incorrect form-filling? Are these real errors? When I hear, out in the field, how hard it is to obtain money from the Structural Funds, I find it scarcely credible that the controls are not adequate, because more and more I am hearing people say ‘someone else can have my share – it is far too complicated being involved with the Funds’. At least that is what I am hearing in some of the Dutch provinces.
Now as we start the discharge procedure for the Commission, I think what matters most is this: what has the Commission done in response to Parliament’s earlier recommendations in its resolutions on discharge? Because does the Treaty not say that the Commission must take all appropriate steps to act on these discharge resolutions as far as possible? To my mind there are two things in them that need to be spelled out more clearly – not just in a resolution but in the Treaty too in the section on the multiannual budget, regarding the declarations by Member States. Other people have also made reference to this; two Parliament resolutions state that the commissioners must sign off the declarations submitted annually in whatever form by the directors-general. To Parliament this means that the responsibility lies not with the Commission as a collegiate body, but that commissioners are individually responsible for their budgets. I would be glad to hear more about this.
Lastly, the new Treaty says that the Commission and Member States are jointly responsible. In the light of these Member States’ declarations it would be interesting to know how the Commission is preparing to implement the new Treaty now and in the future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples