Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-22-Speech-2-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080422.4.2-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I must begin by reminding everyone that we are nearing the end of an incredibly important exercise. In general terms, if Parliament’s role is analysed in relation to that of the other institutions, it is perhaps possible to say that we have three main tasks. We are involved in creating legislation for the European countries and their citizens. We are involved in establishing the budget, i.e. determining what the EU’s funds should be used for. Finally, the last role is to act as a supervisory body. It is Parliament that is the citizens’ watchdog, if one can put it that way. The exercise that we will complete here today is possibly the most important part of this role of supervisory body: it is the part where we meticulously review the Commission and the other institutions in relation to how they manage the funds, and not least, of course, assess how things are working in the Member States, where we know that around 80% of the EU’s funds are managed.
That said, it is also naturally down to me to praise my fellow Members from the other groups. It is Parliament as a whole that will vote on the report today. I believe we have enjoyed excellent cooperation within the Committee on Budgetary Control. I would particularly like to mention the shadow rapporteurs, who I believe have contributed very constructively to the matter. This is of course why we have been able to exert such enormous pressure on the Commission and enter into such constructive dialogue with it.
Let me begin by mentioning a couple of positive points. I will certainly move on to the negative aspects, but let me begin by mentioning a couple of positive points in relation to previous years. There is no doubt that within the agricultural sector we have made good progress in connection with controlling the funds. The ‘integrated financial control system’ – and yes, this is probably not the view of many citizens out there in Europe who are following this speech – means of course that a completely new and much more effective way of controlling the EU’s agricultural funds has been introduced. The system is extremely effective. The European Court of Auditors itself has highlighted this many times. We already know that within a few years essentially all the funds within the agricultural policy will be covered by this very effective system, which definitely deserves praise. However, in recent years we have had heard strong criticism regarding a number of points connected with the research policy. In addition, it must be noted at this point that the Commission has taken our criticism very seriously and has implemented an action plan, which has ensured that many of these problems are in the process of being resolved. The Commission deserves a great deal of praise for this. Finally, we are naturally very pleased about the initiatives, which have been brought out into the open. We now have openness concerning the recipients of EU support in relation to both social funds and agricultural expenses. Additionally, we will now find out the names of the participants of the various working groups in the Council and the Commission, something that this House has fought for for many years. The Commission has now consented to disclose this information.
It has to be said that this is a very positive development. However, it is of course clear that this process has concerned areas in which we have had a certain amount of criticism. Everyone who has been following the process knows that this specifically concerns two areas: the Structural Funds and foreign policy matters, i.e. external matters. With regard to the Structural Funds, the Court of Auditors concluded very clearly that 12% of the funds that had been paid out should never have been paid: 12%, or almost EUR 4 billion. It is obvious that this is a completely unacceptable situation.
It was the starting point for the exercise that we will conclude today. We have had several consultations, and together with the committee I have personally enjoyed close dialogue with the Commission. The fact that as rapporteur I can now finish by granting discharge is solely due to the fact that we have achieved a number of results. The Commission has actually implemented a considerable number of reforms – it has been shown that 37 very specific points will now be implemented. This has been adopted by the College of Commissioners. In some areas, it is a question of introducing both more and tighter controls, while in other areas it is a question of simplifying the controls to make them more effective. In all areas, very clear deadlines have been introduced. We have been given some very clear criteria regarding how feedback should be given, so that both we and the public have the opportunity to check that this also actually has a positive effect. We must remember two things: firstly, of course, the fact that the money that was paid out incorrectly in 2006 – which is the subject of this procedure – is to be recovered. We believe that this has now been guaranteed. However, there must also be a guarantee that it will not happen again in future. This is probably just as important. With the new procedures that the Commission has put forward, we believe that this goal has been achieved.
It is obvious that fine words alone are not enough. Although we have now said that we accept the reforms that have been put forward, we will follow up this matter and monitor process very carefully. Therefore, today I would also like to put forward an amendment proposal, which I understand that the Commission is prepared to support. I have received an indication from Mr Kallas that it may be an acceptable solution if the Commission were to meet with the Committee on Budgetary Control once a month and give us the opportunity to discuss the progress made in this area. This would be incredibly beneficial for both parties.
Allow me to say a few words about the second area in which we have experienced major problems. This concerns matters of foreign policy. More specifically, it concerns the issue of Iraq. We know that the EU is providing some funding for the reconstruction of Iraq – there are certainly many good political reasons for doing so. We have singled out Iraq as an example. We would like a list of the specific projects in Iraq that are financed either in part or in full by the EU via the UN and the World Bank. Obtaining such a list has proved to be extremely difficult. It has taken several months. The information that we already knew should have been on the list was nevertheless not on the list, and there was a prolonged discussion back and forth until, quite recently, we finally obtained the information that we should have had in the first place. This is of course why we are now finally in a position where we can actually also give discharge in this area. The most important question in connection with this is naturally: what about the future? Iraq is simply one example. What about the other countries, of which there are more than 100, where the EU provides support for various activities? The Commission has now committed itself to granting public access to the final beneficiary, i.e. the final recipient of the support, from 2007 onwards, which is something that I acknowledge and believe is entirely necessary.
For all these reasons, I recommend that we grant discharge. There are a number of criticisms that can be highlighted with regard to the Commission and with regard to the ways that things are done in the Member States. I would also like to say that we have achieved a result through good dialogue with the Commission. This means that we can now recommend that approval be granted for the accounts for 2006. There are still areas in which we would like to see things being taken further. We would very much like to have ‘national declarations of assurance’, as is the term here in Parliament, i.e. annual national auditing declarations, signed by the finance minister of the country in question. We still believe that this would be a very beneficial tool in the fight against deception, fraud and secrecy concerning EU funds in the individual countries. With this concluding wish, I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak in the first round."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples