Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-20-Speech-4-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081120.3.4-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, many remarks have been made. We have a long process of discharge and discussions ahead of us, during which all these remarks should receive answers and/or comments.
I would just like to make a comment about simplification, which has been raised many times. Everybody says they are in favour of simplification, but in fact, there are two different underlying opinions. The first is that the recipients of money want to have more of a free hand, while those contributing that money want a very clear understanding of where the money is going. So there is a constant contradiction. Secondly, we have until now – although the past two years or so have been different – always assumed that there is zero tolerance for any error. The rules are therefore elaborated to prevent any error in the millions of transactions that take place. That has also produced some kind of mythological view of the famous declaration of assurance, saying that the underlying transactions of all accounts have errors. In fact, as the Court of Auditors says in this report, 95% of all expenditure is free of errors, except in the Structural Funds, where the level of error is higher. So the vast majority of spending has been done in accordance with the rules.
However, zero tolerance of errors is something we will soon be addressing. The question of tolerable risks has been raised here many times also, and we will also soon present to Parliament a communication on the intensive discussions which are taking place at the moment in the Commission. We have models which clearly show, for instance, that if you want to have zero tolerance – 100% free of errors – then you have the enormous cost of controls. Somewhere there is a point where the errors, costs and risks meet. In this we highly appreciate the Court of Auditors’ approach, first of all towards introducing this kind of quantitative travel light which gives a much better picture. Then we will go ahead and see – as one honourable Member said – that maybe in some areas there should be less materiality threshold, and more in others. Then we can have a more reasonable interpretation of the requirement of the legality and regularity of transactions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples