Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-22-Speech-2-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080422.4.2-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all I wish to thank the rapporteurs and the Chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control for doing an excellent job. Now before us are 30 reports on discharge pertaining to the year 2006. The most important of them is the Commission’s, which relates to 97% of the EU’s budget. The rest relate to the EU’s other institutions and separate agencies.
In my opinion, the way the matter of discharge is dealt with by Parliament should be improved. The Committee on Budgetary Control cannot be a Court of Auditors and still less a firm of accountants. It is a physical impossibility for it to conduct a detailed examination of the administration and accounts of 30 units. Parliament has to put its trust in experts and the opinions of official bodies. Of these, the European Court of Auditors, internal monitoring bodies, and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) are the most important.
Even the most stringent detailed examination of accounts and administration only results in what is an apparent degree of accuracy, and that does not make the outcome any more reliable. There is no direct correlation between the way discharge is dealt with and the number of reports produced. On the contrary, when Parliament grants discharge to a single agency, for example, that might be too strong an assurance that the accounts and administration were meticulously attended to.
If Parliament really wants to strengthen its role in the discharge process it should revise its practices. Otherwise, the Committee on Budgetary Control will be inundated with work."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples