Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-29-Speech-4-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071129.3.4-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would also like to begin by thanking the Court of Auditors for an excellent report and a good presentation here today. It is clear that it is an incredibly useful instrument in our work to ensure that EU citizens’ money is managed well and in a legitimate and appropriate manner. Unfortunately, the report’s general conclusion is unsatisfactory. It is clear that when it has not been possible to provide a positive audit statement for 13 years in a row, there is cause for deep, deep criticism. Unfortunately, it indicates that there is no control over taxpayers’ money, and unfortunately it indicates that here in Parliament, together with the Commission and the Member States, we have a major task ahead of us. We need to do things better. Things must be done better.
In the Committee on Budgetary Control the annual procedure is now underway – that is, we are consulting the relevant commissioners and thoroughly reviewing the documents that are now available to us. Only when we have completed this process will we be able to say to what extent we can give what is technically known as a ‘discharge’ – in other words, the extent to which we approve the accounts and the implementation of the budgets for 2006. There are some arguments in favour of doing this: there has been progress in some areas. However, unfortunately there are also some very, very serious criticisms, and consequently some very serious arguments against approving the accounts for 2006.
Allow me to begin with the positive aspects. Fortunately, it has been the case that in the agricultural sector things are going very well, as has been mentioned by other Members, and as both the Court of Auditors and Mr Kallas mentioned in their contributions. The system referred to as an ‘integrated financial control system’ has proved to be effective. It must be said that in the areas where it has been implemented there has been good financial control. We can look citizens in the eye and say that the money they have paid in taxes has been managed well and appropriately. In the case of Greece, where this system has not been implemented properly, I believe that the Commission has acted responsibly by saying that it will suspend payments. This is both good and positive. In the research sector too there is good reason to be positive. It is almost a textbook example. Over the last year, we have certainly highlighted some criticisms, which Commissioner Potočnik has subsequently taken into account, and naturally this is the way in which we will work. It is certainly a very good thing we are not here to be populist, as some members would like to be. We are not here to run errands for the EU’s opponents; we are here to highlight the points that are worthy of criticism and come up with good and constructive proposals for solutions.
That said, there are huge problems relating to the Structural Funds. We have not been given an explanation of the 12% that you mentioned, Mr Kallas. It is possible that there is an explanation. We hope that there is. However, we have not received such an explanation. Unfortunately, we can also see that it is of course unsatisfactory that the control systems are being labelled as ineffective in all cases investigated by the Court of Auditors. In addition, we must say that there is also a lack of control in connection with foreign policy concerning the EUR 1 billion that is being used jointly with other institutions in international trust funds. In conclusion, I will say that there has to be some very clear answers. If we are to recommend discharge, there must be some very good explanations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples