Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-05-Speech-4-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001005.5.4-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The European Union suffers from a bad image among many citizens. Rapporteur Van Hulten expressed the following view in an interview with a Dutch weekly magazine, “It is called Europe, it is in Brussels and is corrupt.” Thanks to the action taken by a “whistle blower” and the Committee of Wise Men, corruption has been brought out into the open. In the interview, Mr Van Hulten is right in saying that we will not be able to draft a positive agenda until we have solved problems such as fraud, waste, but also a lack of efficiency and effectiveness in decision-making.
The financial reform, more specifically the establishment of an internal audit department, is conducive to the European Union’s effectiveness. Rapporteur Van Hulten is right in filling in the gaps in the Commission proposal: what is needed is a clear definition of the distribution of responsibilities between financial control and internal audit. But if Mr Van Hulten would like to dedicate himself to an efficient and effective Union, we, along with the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, cannot see why he should exempt smaller institutions, such as the Committee of the Regions, from internal audit duty.
This view is at the expense of transparency of the financial regulation. Naturally the number of transactions in the smaller institutions is smaller than in the large ones – the 800 000 transactions performed annually in the Commission eclipse the 10 000 transactions performed annually in the Committee of the Regions. But this only says something about the staffing levels of the internal audit department and nothing about the financial significance and hence usefulness of such a department.
This is the reason why I have applied for split voting on Amendment No 3. In this way, it will still be possible to include the obligation of an internal audit department in the proposal. Although the rapporteur shares my view that all institutions must be given equal treatment, he would like to postpone this equal treatment until the definitive review of the financial regulation in eighteen months’ time. In my view, if the opportunity presents itself to step up efficiency within the EU institutions, each day that passes while we are waiting is one too many.
To set up an internal audit office in the institutions will naturally require effort, but that effort will remain the same, whether it is made now or in the future. The image of Europe is not served by the efficient operation of the large EU institutions alone; in many respects, it is probably the small ones that make all the difference."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples