Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-22-Speech-4-027-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-11-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Presentation of the Court of Auditors’ annual report - 2011 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20121122.7.4-027-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-11-22-Speech-4-028-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Markus Pieper2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; CONT (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; ITRE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3,3 member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 vice-chair; REGI (2012-01-25--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President, unfortunately, the Court of Auditors’ annual report, notwithstanding all of the progress made, gives no cause to silence the alarm bells. The error rate is rising again, with a second consecutive increase in 2011. There are surprisingly high anomalies in rural development and the Cohesion Fund. What I find especially annoying is that 62 % of the errors found by the Court of Auditors should in fact have been detected by the Member States themselves, and this is on the increase. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the way to build trust and confidence. However, the fact that the Court of Auditors steadfastly refuses to publish a breakdown of its statistics on the errors made by each Member State is not the way to do so either. In my view, there are three lessons to be learned from the report. Firstly, it is clearer than ever, in my view, that EU funds should only be channelled to properly functioning administrations. In other words, what is needed here is more supervisory responsibility for the Commission, but as another logical consequence, there must be conditionalities in relation to the Structural Funds and the agricultural funds. European funds should only flow if European legislation – for example in the field of competition law and procurement – is genuinely being implemented. There should be no cash for unreliable governments and poor administrations! The second lesson is this: surely the error rates must be more transparent, based on a country breakdown? There is still a lingering impression that there is something to hide, and that is not a good signal to send out at a time when we are seeking to build trust and confidence in the EU. Thirdly, Parliament should do more than simply act as a referee between the Court of Auditors and the Commission. Now, for the first time, we share the responsibility of putting in place a legal framework, notably in respect of agricultural and structural policy, which are the largest areas of the budget. However, do we genuinely have the capacity to exert effective budget control? In other words, are our capacities commensurate with this newly acquired responsibility? The Court of Auditors, the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) are powerful and well-established structures. If we genuinely want to exert independent parliamentary control, the European Parliament must have more authority. Exactly where is something that we need to discuss in the discharge procedure."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph